Skip to main content

Full text of "Colonial self-government, 1652-1689"

See other formats


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 

to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 

to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other maiginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 

publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing tliis resource, we liave taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 
We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain fivm automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attributionTht GoogXt "watermark" you see on each file is essential for in forming people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liabili^ can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 

at |http: //books .google .com/I 










Publiihcd Navmbcr, i^d 



Editor's Introduction xiii 

Author's Prbfacb xvii 

i/ 1. Navigation Acts and Colonial Trade 

(1651-1672) 3 

Ui* English Administration of the Colonies 

(1660-1689) ,22_ 

III. Reorganization of New England -(1660- 

1662) 41 

nr. Territorial Adjustment in New England 

(1662-1668) 57 { 

V. New Amsterdam becomes New York (165^- | \ 

1672) 74 '^ *^ 

VL The Province of New York (1674-1686) . 90 

* VII. Foundation of the Jerseys (1660-1677), . loi 
^'viii. Development of the Jerseys (1674-1689) . 113 

• rx. Foundation of the Carolinas (1663-1671) . 129 
X. Governmental Problems in the Carolinas 

(1671-1691) 145 

xj. Foundation of Pennsylvania (1680-1691) . 162 
XII. Governmental Problems in Pennsylvania 

(1681-1696) 185 

i xiii. Development of Virginia (1652-1675) . . 202 






• XIV. Bacon's Rbbbllion and its Results (1675- 

1689) 215 

•XV. Dbvblopmbnt OP Maryland (1649-^1686). . 232 


XVII. Thb Revolution in America (1687-1691) 273 

XVIII. Social and Religious Life in the Colonies 

(1652-1689) 288 

XIX. Commercial and Economic Conditions in 

THE Colonies (1652-1689) 314 

XX. Critical Essay on Authorities .... 337 
Inde? 355 

Extent of Settlement (1652) (in colors) . facing 41 
Colonial Grants and Boundaries (1612-1681). . 112 

Virginia and the Carolinas (1689) 204 

Pennsylvania, West New Jersey, Delaware, and 

Maryland (1689) (*♦* colors) facing 255 

New England, New York, and East New 

Jersey (1689) (in colors) " 273 


IN the history of the English colonies there comes 
a natural break at the point where the original 
system of charter colonies directed from England 
was thrown into confusion by the disruption of 
the English monarchy. The year 1652 marks this 
change, for in that year the southern colonies yielded 
to a parliamentary fleet ; and soon after began a hos- 
tile feeling towards the Dutch, which ended ten 
years later in the annexation of their American pos- 
sessions. It is at 1652, therefore, that Tyler's Eng- 
land in America ends and this volume begins. 

The period is further characterized by the develop- 
ment of a new colonial system, which for a century 
and a quarter was consistently followed by the Eng- 
lish government ; hence chapters i. and ii. are devoted 
to a study of the navigation acts and of the ad- 
ministrative councils to which eventually the name 
Lords of Trade was applied. Upon both subjects 
Professor Andrews has found new material and ex- 
poimds new views. The neglected problem of the 
execution of the acts of trade has been fairly faced, 
and by delving in manuscript records Professor An- 
drews has, for the first time, been able to disen- 

• • • 



tangle the early council of trade and council of 
foreign plantations. 

Chapters iii. and iv. describe the territorial and 
political readjustment in New England, and throw 
new light on the charters of Connecticut and Rhode 
Island and the first movement against the Massa- 
chusetts charter, subjects which heretofore have been 
involved in much confusion. Closely connected 
with the status of New England are the annexation 
and organization of the new colony of New York 
(chapters v. and vi.) ; and this volume solves some of 
the most perplexing problems as to the motives for 
the conquest and the status of the Duke's Laws. 

Chapters vii. to x. deal with the foundation and 
development of the Jerseys and the Carolinas. Here 
the English archives have jrielded rich material on 
the underlying motives for these simxiltaneous colo- 
nies, on the personal influences behind them, and on 
the perplexing questions of territorial claims and 
transfers. New Jersey has always been a specially 
difficult subject; but Professor Andrews disentan- 
gles the various threads of proprietary, Qtiaker, and 
Puritan settlements. In the Jerseys and the Caro- 
linas appear the Concessions, which were a sort of 
popular constitution bestowed by the proprietor ; and 
in the Carolinas there is opportunity for the dis- 
cussion of John Locke's celebrated Grand Model, an 
example to succeeding generations of what a colonial 
constitution could not be. 

On the beginnings of Pennsylvania, the same care- 


fill investigation of out-of-the-way sources, both 
printed and manuscript (chapters xi. and xii.), has 
given to Professor Andrews control over the difficult 
subject of the circumstances of Penn's grant and his 
efforts to establish a free government in a prosperous 
colony. The place of Pennsylvania is made clear, 
as the seat of German and other foreign immigration, 
the first on any considerable scale. 

In chapters xiii. to xv. the author takes up the 
account of Virginia and Maryland where Tyler left it 
oS in the preceding voltmie ; but, besides his lucid ac- 
coimt of the conunercial and political development 
of the two colonies, he has a fine field for treating a 
dramatic episode in his accotmt of Bacon's Rebel- 

This period of disttu^bance in the South was also a 
period of unrest and contentions in New England; 
and in chapters xvi. and xvii. Professor Andrews 
depicts Sir Edmund Andros, the representative of a 
purpose to make one colony out of the whole New 
England group, together with New York and New 

The voltune is concluded by two chapters describ- 
ing the social and economic conditions of the colo- 
nies about 1689, especially interesting as showing 
the wide conmiercial relations of New England and 
the middle colonies. 

The most commanding figure of this period is 
William Penn, at the same time a great English- 
man and a great American, whose portrait is pre- 


fixed to this volume. An unusual opportunity to use 
unpublished records has been improved, so that the 
foot-notes to this volume are very full and explicit ; 
and in the bibliographical essay the most signifi- 
cant of the secondary and primary materials on each 
colony are selected. 

The importance of the volume in the American 
Nation series is that it includes colonies of the three 
tjrpes which persisted down to the Revolution — the 
crown colonies of Virginia and New York and New 
Hampshire ; the proprietary colonies in the Jerseys, 
Pennsylvania and Delaware, Maryland, and the 
Carolinas ; and the three New England charter colo- 
nies, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. 
On one side the volume emphasizes the variety of 
conditions and experiments in government. On 
the other side it brings out that characteristic which 
gives the volume its name, the steady determina- 
tion of the colonists in all three types of colony to 
enjoy self-government in internal affairs. This per- 
sistent and unquenchable determination made the 
English colonies of that time different from all other 
colonies in the world. In vain did the English gov- 
ernment set up a system of commercial restriction ; 
the colonies evaded or ignored it. In vain did the 
English government, through Andros and through 
the cotirts, seek to annul the charters of New Eng- 
land; by passive resistance and by active protest 
the colonists reasserted their privilege of discussion 
and of legislation. 


THE period of colonial history dealt with in this 
volume presents certain well-defined charac- 
teristics. By 1650 each community had settled its 
government along democratic lines — that is, had 
put into practice the principles of manhood suffrage, 
proportional representation, and the co-operation 
of the people in legislation. The direction that 
government was to take in America was already 
definitely determined. 

Yet dtiring the period of this volume, 165 2-1 689, 
conditions in England underwent a great change. 
Constitutional monarchy was definitely established ; 
national life quickened; new interests, fostered by 
men who had gained experience in trade and com- 
merce under Cromwell, supplanted the old ; and an 
era essentially modem began. Enthusiasm spread 
for whatever would strengthen commerce and ex- 
tend the revenue; the plantations assxuned a place 
undreamed of before. 

Such interest in the colonies took the form of the 
navigation acts; the fotmding of new colonies; the 
establishment of Privy Council committees, and of 
separate but subordinate boards and cotmcils for 



trade and plantations ; the regulation of the planta- 
tion revenue and the appointment of new revenue 
officials both in England and in America; the de- 
spatch of special commissioners to New England in 
1664, and of Randolph in 1675; the ordering of 
troops to Virginia and New York ; and, finally, the 
attempt to unite the northern colonies more closely 
to the crown, which centred in the mission and gov- 
ernment of Andros. 

In consequence of this attempt to formulate and 
put in force a system of colonial management, trouble 
inevitably arose between the people and the royal 
and proprietary governors in New York and the 
southern colonies; and between New England and 
the crown. With a government in England en- 
deavoring to shape a definite programme of control, 
and a king on the throne who had no patience with 
the colonial demand for English liberties, it is lit- 
tle wonder that the era culminated in a series of 
exciting and dramatic episodes. 

A part of the labor of investigation for this vol- 
tmie has been borne by two of my students, Miss G. 
Albert, who has aided me both in England and 
America, and Miss H. H. Hodge, who has helped me 
with the history of the Massachusetts Bay colony. 
I have also had the advantage of seeing Miss Kel- 
logg's essay on The American Colonial Charter. 

Charles M. Andrews. 






BY the middle of the seventeenth century the 
first period of colonization had come to an end, 
and the English settlers were scattered in isolated 
communities all the way from the far-lying fishing 
villages of the Maine and New Hampshire coasts to 
western Long Island, where a few towns accepted 
the jurisdiction of the government of New Nether- 
land. Separated by a wide space from their fellow- 
countrymen of the north were the colonists of Mary- 
land and Virginia, who occupied a coast low-lying 
and deeply indented with wide river-mouths. In 
1650 all these settlements contained something more 
than forty thousand people, of whom about twenty- 
five thotisand were New-Englanders. 

Between the settlements of the north and south 
lay a wide stretch of coast, practically uninhabited, 



except by the Dutch on the Hudson and the islands 
adjoining, and by the Swedes at Fort Christina 
(Wilmington), New Gtottenburg, and New Elfsborg, 
who laid claim to the territory from the Schuylkill 
to Bombay Hook for a Swedish colony in America. 
Traders from New Haven also sought opportimities 
for business on the lower Delaware, but met with 
such opposition from both Dutch and Swedes that 
they were compelled to withdraw. With the ap- 
proach of the mid-year of the century began the 
struggle for supremacy between the Dutch and the 
Swedes. Five years later (1655) the Swedish colony, 
unable to obtain support from the home govern- 
ment, surrendered; and henceforth the region from 
the Hudson to the Chesapeake was claimed by the 
Dutch, and, at a few points, occupied by Swedish 
and Dutch farmers and traders. 

During the early years of colonization the ma- 
chinery for controlling the colonies was little de- 
veloped. In 1622, King James I. appointed a com- 
mittee of the coimcil to dontrol navigation and trade ; 
and later Charles I. did the same. After 1643 the 
Long Parliament took control and appointed a com- 
mission of prominent parliamentarians, headed by 
Robert, earl of Warwick, as govemor-in-chief of all 
the colonies in America. 

After the execution of Charles I. in 1649, Parlia- 
ment directed the colonies to maintain their existing 
governments, and in 1651 despatched a fleet to 
Barbadoes, and a commission to Virginia and 


Maryland, to reduce those provinces to their due 
obedience to the Commonwealth of England/ 

About the same time the control of the colonies 
was placed in the hands of the Council of State, 
one of whose committees formed a council of trade, 
which met at Whitehall and for a few years trans- 
acted business. References to its meetings still 
exist. But in 1655 a separate board was establish- 
ed, consisting of six lords of the council, seven chief 
judges, ten gentlemen of distinction, and about 
twenty officials and merchants of leading seaport 
towns. This body, the precursor of the councils of 
the Restoration and the first Board of Trade prop- 
erly so called, was authorized to consider " all ways 
and means for advancing, encouraging, and reg- 
ulating the trade and navigation of the Common- 
wealth." It sat in the Star Chamber at West- 
minster, and was responsible for a number of the 
ordinances issued by the Protector and Council of 
State for the promotion of commerce.' 

During the Commonwealth came the beginning '>> 
also of that far-reaching system of control of co- 
lonial commerce to which the names "Navigation 
Acts," "Acts of Trade," and "Colonial System" 
have been applied indifferently. Although, from 
the point of view of English state policy, the English 

• Schombiirgk, Hist, of Barbadoes, 268-285; Thurloe, State 
Papers, I., 197. 

' Thurloe, State Papers, IV., 177; British Museiun, Additional 
MSS., 12438, iii., f. 17. 


colonies in America enjoyed a large degree of self- 
government, they were not legally independent, but 
formed a part of a colonial empire founded and 
maintained for the glory and interest of the mother- 
cotmtry. Like France, Spain, and Holland, Eng- 
land was confronted with a situation that was new 
in her history, and was called upon to perform a 
task for which she had no precedent. It is hardly 
' to be wondered at that, during the great crises of 
revolution through which England passed in the 
seventeenth century, English statesmen should have 
failed to formulate any uniform or consistent plan 
of colonial management or to have grasped the 
\ significance of a colonial empire. It is, however, a 
• fact of equal interest, that from the days of the Long 
Parliament to the reign of William III. the colonial 
and commercial policy, such as it was, suffered 
fewer changes than did any other department of 
national administration. Even Charles II. was 
obliged to carry out the commercial schemes of 
Cromwell, because they were in accord with the 
needs and interests of the English people. 

Inasmuch as the discovery and development of 
the New World had been due to the rise of national 
states like Portugal, Spain, France, and England, 
it naturally followed that in governing the colonies 
of the newly discovered continent these states should 
adopt a policy national in character — that is, one 
having as its main object the strengthening of the 
state. This policy was based, not on any theory. 


but on the needs of states which were outgrowing 
their mediaeval Uf e and were raising the interests of 
the king and central government — that is, of the 
whole nation — above those of the towns and 
boroughs. A larger life had come into being; and 
as states began to compete with states in the field 
of commerce and colonization, England became in a 
new sense the rival of Spain, France, and Holland. 
To meet the new situation, each state desired to 
become the absolute mistress of all its resources, and 
to prevent rivals from sharing in any of the advan- 
tages it possessed. Out of this international com- 
petition a doctrine of national expediency took 
shape during the seventeenth century, to which has 
been given the name of '* Mercantile System." 

The underiying ptapose of this doctrine was the 
strengthening and preserving of the state, into 
whose hands had now come the control of industry, 
trade, and commerce. To the statesmen of the ^ 
seventeenth century the welfare of corporation and , 
individual was of secondary importance as com- J 
pared with the welfare of the state. A strong state 
demanded a full treasury, a large population, and 
an efficient navy and merchant marine. To these 
ends, each state sought to increase its available 
wealth by monopolizing specie wherever fotmd; by 
fostering trade for the sake of increasing the customs 
revenues; and by creating a favorable balance of 
trade, so that exports, which brought coin into the 
realm, might exceed imports, bought from other 


countries with money, and hence draining coin out 
of the kingdom. _. 

That it might have a large stock of available 
goods for export, each state imported, as far as 
possible, only raw materials, which it could work up 
at home ; and England in particular encouraged the 
immigration of foreign workmen, not only on the 
ground of efficiency, but also of fashion ; for French 
patterns and styles had such popularity at the court 
of Charles II. as to disconcert the advocates of the 
mercantile policy.* Furthermore, each state en- 
couraged agriculture, that the supply of men might 
be sufficient for the army and navy ; and each labored 
with exceptional zeal to extend shipping, by en- 
couraging such subsidiary interests as fishing and 
ship-building, and by arranging treaties with coun- 
tries that controlled the supply of "naval stores" — 
that is, raw materials, such as timber, tar, pitch, 
hemp, and flax, which were needed for the equip- 
ment of the navy and the commercial marine. 

The colonial policy of all Europe was shaped by the 
principles thus laid down. Colonies were valued 
only so far as they contributed to the strength and 
wealth of the mother-state; and for more than a 
century their number was increased, not only for the 
purpose of extending the territory and prestige of 
the state, but of enlarging its resources also. The in- 
dustry of the colonies was confined to raw materials, 
not from any desire to curtail the activities of the 

* Journal of the Lords of Trade, I., 84-90. 


colonies, but in order that the state might obtain 
from its own colonies, in return for manufactured 
goods, those supplies which must otherwise be bought 
from rival states. The trade of the colonies was 
restricted to the home market, for the double pur- 
pose of preventing other states from sharing in 
its advantages and of swelling the revenue from 

Thus the colonies were subordinated, as were in- 
dividuals and mtmicipalities at home, to the one 
great end of increasing the power and wealth of the 
state. To the statesmen of the seventeenth century, 
colonies were valuable only so far as they extended 
trade and offered a market for English manufactured 
goods, furnished naval supplies and other raw 
materials, opened up mines of precious metals, em- 
ployed English ships in the fisheries and carrying- 
trade, and added to the king's revenue for the ex- 
penses of the kingdom by paying duties on the 
commodities which they sent to England. Colonial 
self-government and colonial administration were 
considered of importance only so far as they affected 
the efficiency and productiveness of the colonies, 
and made them more useful to the home govern- 

Nor were Englishmen of this period without a 
precedent for this policy of protection. In the 
reign of Richard II., long before the era of coloniza- 
tion, a law was passed restricting imports and ex- 
ports to ships owing allegiance to the crown of 


England; a statute of Henry VIII. estabKshed a 
second principle, that such a vessel must be English- 
built and a majority of the sailors must be Eng- 
lish-bom ; legislation of Elizabeth's reign also dealt 
with this question, and, according to contempo- 
rary opinion, caused a large increase of merchant 
shipping. Soon after actual settlements had been 
made in America a distinct colonial policy began 
to develop. In 1624 a proclamation was issued, 
followed at a later date by orders in cotmcil, prohibit- 
ing the use of foreign bottoms for the carriage of 
Virginia tobacco; and in 1641 a number of English 
merchants urged that these rules be embodied in 
an act of Parliament. The Long Parliament, in 
1644, with the double purpose of conciliating the 
colonies and encouraging English shipping, forbade 
the shipment of whale-oil, fins, and gills, except in 
English-built ships; prohibited the importation of 
wine, wool, and silk from France; and enacted that 
no export duty be levied on goods intended for the 
colonies, provided they were forwarded in English 

It was necessary that England should be on the 
alert in these matters, for the Dutch had for forty 
years been gaining control of the carrying-trade of 
the world. These rivals were not only a maritime 
people; they built vessels more rapidly and more 
cheaply than their neighbors, because they knew 
how to gather their materials at the point where 
they were to be used ; or because, as an English critic 


said, "they knew how to congregate at one point 
all the subservient trades that concur towards the 
fabrick of a ship."* The low customs duties in 
Holland also cheapened ship-building, facilitated 
business, and enabled the Dutch to have more ships 
^ than the English, and to charge lower freight rates 
than any other maritime state in Europe could 
afford to do. To break this monopoly was Eng- 
land's object ; and to raise his country to a position 
of leadership in the commercial world was one of 
the greatest ambitions of Cromwell. 

The first so-called ** Navigation Act" was an 
ordinance of 1651. Qontemporaries ascribed the 
act to the influence of the lord chief-justice, Oliver 
St. John, who had been sent as an ambassador to 
negotiate a treaty with the Dutch. According to 
Ludlow, St. John, angry because of the failure of 
the negotiations, prevailed with the council to move 
Parliament to pass the act.' Clarendon, while 
acknowledging the influence of St. John, believed 
that the passage of the measure was in the main 
due to Cromwell, who wished to provoke war with 
the Dutch in order to avoid disbanding the army.' 
From the tone employed by Parliament towards 
the Dutch ambassadors who were sent to expostulate 
against this act, there can be little doubt but that 

* Downing, in journal of the Lords of Trade, I., 91. 

' Ludlow, Memoirs (ed. 1698), 345, 346; Cobbett, HisU of Par- 
liameta. III., 1363; Clarendon, Hist, of the Rebellion (ed. 1888), 
v., 251, 25a. 

■ Clarendon, Hist, of the Rebellion, V., 260. 


both the Parliament and the people of England were 
in sympathy with the measure. 

The act of 1651 declared that only those ships 
of which the owner, the captain, and the majority 
of sailors were Englishmen or colonials had the 
right to carry on : (i) the trade between England and 
her colonies; (2) the coasting trade, whether between 
English or between colonial ports ; and (3) the foreign 
trade of England so far as it concerned the planta- 
tions. The only exception to this act was the 
permission given to other nations to bring the 
products and commodities of their own country in 
their own ships, an exception which did not lessen 
the severity of the blow to Holland, inasmuch as 
that country had relatively few manufactures of 
her own, except woollens. But the exception made 
the operation of the act less injurious to such 
countries as France and Spain, with whom England 
had important trade relations. In forbidding the 
Dutch to carry any goods from the English colonies 
to England or her dominions, England indirectly 
deprived them of the lucrative privilege of storing 
such goods in their own warehouses before shipping 
them to England, and so destroyed an important 
source of their wealth. 

Had the enforcing of the act been as skilful as the 
draughting, it would have ruined the United Prov- 
inces; but the Dutch colony on the Hudson River 
enabled them to evadie the aict in America with 
little difficulty. When war broke out in 1652 be- 


tween England and Holland, Cromwell sent an ex- 
pedition commanded by Major Robert Sedgwick to 
New England to demand aid of the colonies and 
to overthrow New Netherland. Sedgwick obeyed 
his orders, and with a force of nine hundred men 
and a troop of horse prepared to advance from 
Boston upon New Amsterdam; but before the 
expedition could start, peace was made between 
England and Holland (1654) and the attempt was 
given up.* 

Though for the moment Massachusetts, Connecti- 
cut, and Rhode Island prohibited the export of 
provisions to the Dutch or French in i^erica; 
and though Virginia, ostensibly possessing the 
right of free-trade by the terms of her surrender 
to Parliament in 1652, was compelled to see, in 
some cases at least, the act of 1651 enforced, little 
more was done; and after 1654 the old conditions 
were in the main re-established. Rhode Island re- 
sumed her trade with the Dutch; New England 
traders, as well as the Virginians themselves, car- 
ried Virginia tobacco to New Amsterdam and there 
reshipped it to Holland ;' and free-trade was in full 
operation in Massachusetts.' ' 

The restoration of the Stuarts in 1660 marks an 
epoch in the history of the colonies and of colonial 

^ Cal, of State Pap., Col., 1574-1660, pp. 386, 387; Thurloe, 
State Papers, I., 722; XL, 418, 419, 425, 583. 

» N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 48; Thurloe, State Papers, 
v., 80. 81. • 

* Hutchinson, Hist, of Massachusetts Bay, I., 189. 


administration. Royalists in exile, like Prince 
Charles and the dtike of York, Clarendon, Carteret, 
Berkeley, Craven, and others, who were watching 
the course of events, appreciated the importance of 
the navigation act, and were prepared to re-enact 
the greater part of it. Parliamentarians like Ashley 
Cooper, Monck, Colleton, Noell, Povey, Digges, and 
others, some of whom had been resident in the colo- 
nies or had sat on special colonial boards and com- 
missions at home, were ready to serve the new 
government and to uphold a vigorous colonial 

Inmiediately after the Restoration the ordinance 
of 1651 was renewed in what is known as the ** Navi- 
gation Act of 1660." The passage of this statute 
has been ascribed to Sir George Downing, graduate 
of Harvard College, English resident at The Hague 
for many years, and one of the most influential, 
though not one of the most trustworthy, advisers in 
matters of trading policy. Downing, an enemy of 
the Dutch and an ardent mercantilist, threw all his 
weight in favor of the measure; but many other 
forces were at work also. The encouragement of 
trade was a cardinal tenet of the king and his 
ministers throughout the entire reign ; and Clarendon 
fully appreciated the importance of the plantations, 
as well as of the fisheries and of the great trading 
companies, as a means of increasing the revenue. 
He urged upon the king, both in exile and after 
his return, ** a great esteem for his plantations and 


the improvement of them by all the ways that could 
reasonably be proposed to him."* He urged upon 
Parliament in 1660 the "infinite importance of the 
improvement of trade," and whenever possible 
sought to demonstrate to king and Parliament the 
desirability of extending the navy in order to check 
the "inmioderate desire" of England's neighbors 
and rivals **to engross the whole traffic of the 

The merchants, too, who had gained their ex- 
perience under the protectorate, '* lamented the 
obstructions and discouragements which they had 
long fotmd in their commerce by sea with other 
nations," due, they said, to "the pride and in- 
solence of the Hollanders," and were eager to 
destroy the supremacy of Holland.* When the 
speaker of the House of Commons presented the bill 
to the king to sign, he said: "The act will enable 
your Majesty to give the law to foreign princes 
abroad, and is the only way to enlarge your Majesty's 
dominions all over the world; for as long as your 
Majesty is master at sea, your merchants will be 
welcome wherever they come, and that is the easiest 
way of making whatever is theirs ours, and where it 
is ours, your Majesty cannot want it."* 

The king was "upon all occasions very zealous to 

* Life of Clarendon, written by himself (ed. 1798), V., 171. 
*Cobbett, Hist, of Parliament, IV., 128, 250. 

* Life of Clarendon, written by himself (ed. 1798), III., 201. 

* Cobbett, Hist, of Parliament, III., 121, 122; cf. Journal of 
fjbr House of Commons, VIII., 548. 


increase the trade of the nation,"* and was taught 
by Clarendon that the receipts from the plantation 
trade could repair some of the deficiencies of his in- 
come. It is significant that in 1661 a new royal 
officer was created — the receiver-general of the rev- 
enues of foreign plantations — ^with Thomas Povey 
as the first appointee.' Parliament, while making 
grants for the expenses of the government, as- 
sumed no responsibility for the actual collecting of 
the money, and the emptiness of the treasury in 
1672, known as the '*Stop of the Exchequer," 
showed that an increase of the revenue was a royal 

For this purpose Charles II. encouraged the 
plantations and added to their number; he labored 
to improve the Newfotmdland trade and fisheries;* 
he made treaties with Portugal, yielding to certain 
unsatisfactory conditions **for trade's sake";* and 
in negotiating with Savoy, Denmark, Spain, France, 
and Holland, he kept trade advantages always first 
in mind.* He turned into the treasury the dowry 
received from Catherine of Braganza (;£5oo,ooo), 
and the money received from the sale of Dunkirk 
(£225,000), and he borrowed from private individ- 
uals as well as from the farmers of the customs and 
the goldsmiths in order to meet current expenses, 

* Historical MSS. Commission, Report, XII., pt. vii., 7a. 
*Cal, of State Pap., Dom., 1663-1664, ( 408. 

* Historical MSS. Commission, Report, XII., pt. vii., 1x7. 
*Cobbett, Hist, of Parliament, IV., 189. 

•/Wa., IV.,4S7,4S8. 


partictilarly after the disasters of the Dutch war of 
1664-1666,* The king's interest in his revenues, as 
well as the demands of commerce and trade, the 
nation's jealousy of Holland, and the influence of 
men like Clarendon and Downing, must be taken 
into accotmt if we would tmderstand the navigation 
acts, the founding of new colonies, the establishment 
of new boards and committees, and the quo warranto 
proceedings to annul colonial charters between 1660 
and 1688. The colonies were the king's colonies, 
and his also was the burden of providing money for 
the expenses of the kingdom. 

Since the attempt to cripple the Dutch by the 
navigation act of 1651 proved a failure, the act of 
1660, in repeating the shipping clause of the earlier 
act, made it more rigorous. Thenceforth ships 
must not only be owned and manned by English- 
men (including colonists), but they must also be 
built by Englishmen, and two-thirds of the seamen 
must be English subjects. In later acts of 1662 and 
1663, provision was made whereby real or pre- 
tended misimderstandings of this clause might be 
prevented ; and one of the most important functions 
of the later committees of trade and plantations 
was, by means of rules as to passes, denization and 
naturalization, and foreign -built ships, to prevent 
trade from getting into the hands of foreigners. 

•Co/, of State Pap., Dom,, x66x--x66a, ( 613; 1663-1664, 
II 251, 252; Life of Clarendon, written by himself (ed. 1761), 
III., 9x9. 

TOL. T.— t 


More famous than the shipping clause of the 
act of 1660 is that dealing with the "enumerated" 
commodities. This clause, though not added, curi- 
ously enough, till the third reading of the bill, and 
seemingly as an afterthought, marks a new step in 
the development of the mercantilist idea. It de- 
clared that sugar, tobacco, cotton -wool, fustic, 
and other dye - woods — the most important raw 
materials exported by the colonies — should all be 
carried directly to England. This provision gave 
legal force to a principle of colonial management 
that Cromwell never grasped, whereby the colonies 
were to become a source of raw materials for the 
manufactures of the mother-cotmtry. Cotton-wool 
and dye-woods were needed in England for the 
growing textile industries there ; tobacco, a product of 
Maryland and Virginia, was enumerated because the 
government believing it to be of mutual advan- 
tage Jp limit the colonial market to England and her 
dominions, had forbidden the culture of tobacco at 
home; and sugar, a product of the West Indian 
colonies in great demand at home, and also cocoa 
(added in 1672, when the drinking of chocolate 
became a prevailing fashion) were enumerated to 
prevent their direct shipment to continental coun- 
tries, notably to Spain.* Cotton-wool and dye- 
woods were listed for the sake of the manuf acttirers ; 
sugar, tobacco, and cocoa were listed for the sake 
of the customs revenue. In each case England be- 

* Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1669-1674, ( 375. 


lieved that the monopoly which she offered was a 
sufiScient compensation for the loss of free-trade, 
for the increase in freights, and for the higher rate of 
customs duties charged in England, in comparison 
with other countries. 

In a revision of 1663 another new and far-reaching 
clause was added: all European commodities des- 
tined for the colonies must first be carried to Eng- 
land and there be unloaded and put on shore before 
they could be transported to America; or, in other 
words, all the foreign import trade of the colonies 
had to pass through England's hands, and all ships 
had to touch at England on their way to the colonies. 
The object of the law was to make England a staple 
for all European commodities sent to the colonies, 
and to prevent the colonies from building up an 
independent import trade of their own. If their 
market for the sale of raw materials was to be 
limited, so also must be their market for the pur- 
chase of manufactured goods. Should the colonies 
be free to purchase their woollens where they wished, 
without any restriction, they^ would defeat Eng- 
land's mercantile policy, which demanded that 
colonial raw materials be paid for in England's 
manufactured articles and not in coin; and they 
wotild take advantage of the low price of French 
and Dutch woollens to buy their goods in France 
and Holland, to the serious injury of England's trade. 
England alone must be the staple, the vent, and the 
market, so far as her colonies were concerned. 


The Cromwellian act carried with it no provision 
for the execution of the law, except the promise that 
half of the value of the forfeited cargo and ships should 
go to the informer : but in the act of 1660 a bond and 
security were required of all ships leaving England 
for the colonies, and of all ships clearing from 
colonial ports with a cargo of enumerated com- 
modities; and an effort was made to interest the 
colonial governors in the enforcement of the acts 
by granting them a third of all goods confiscated 
for illegal trading The act of 1663 demanded that 
the colonial governors take oath, before assuming 
office, to do all in their power to enforce the laws, 
under penalty of ;£iooo, loss of office, and ineligi- 
bility for another governorship. Collectors of cus- 
toms who disobeyed the law were to lose their 
positions and to pay a fine equal to the value of 
the ship's cargo. 

A noteworthy advance in the systematic execu- 
tion of the laws was made in 1672. Aroused by 
the reports of illegal trade in tobacco. Parliament 
enacted that in case the ustial bond or promise to 
carry the enumerated commodities directly to Eng- 
land were not given, a duty should be paid to the 
collector at the port of clearance, as, for exam- 
ple, of a penny a pound on tobacco, which was to 
form part of the royal revenue. The object of this 
regulation was to put a stop to the carriage of goods 
to other plantations and their shipment thence to a 
foreign country on the ground that the requirements 




had been fulfilled. Though the machinery for the 
execution of this act was imperfect and its provisions 
were never fully carried out, yet the king by farming 
out the plantation duty during the Restoration was 
able to add to his revenue ^£700 a year. 




/ IN England, after 1660, the management of trade 
1 and plantations was placed in the hands, first • 
of special boards, and afterwards of committees of • 
the Privy Council. A plan for such a body was . 
drawn up, some time during the later years of the 
Protectorate, by Martin Noell, one of the commis- 
sioners for Jamaica, and Thomas Povey, a merchant 
prominently interested in all matters relating to the 
West Indian colonies, afterwards member and clerk 
of the councils of trade and plantations and re- 
ceiver-general of the revenues. This ** Overtures 
touching a Council to be erected for Foreign Planta- 
tions," * contains recommendations for a select 
council for the inspection, care, and regulation of 
all foreign plantations, that the colonies might "un- 
derstand that they are to be looked upon as united 
and embodied and that their Head and Centre is 
here." It provided, ftuther, that a more certain 
government should be set up for the colonies, and 
information of every kind should be obtained from 

* Egerton MSS., in British Musexim, 2395, ff. 270-286. 



the governors and elsewhere, that " each place within 
itself and all of them being as it were made up into 
one Commonwealth, may by his Majesty be here 
governed and regulated accordingly upon common 
and equal principles." This comprehensive scheme, 
based on the actual experiences of a group of Eng- 
lish merchants trading with the West Indies during 
the Cromwellian era, was placed before the king's 
advisers after the Restoration, and doubtless helped 
to shape their plans for the management of the 

July 4, 1660, a Cotmcil Committee for Foreign 
Plantations was designated and continued to act till 
1675.* Side by side with it was a second, advisory 
cotmcil for trade proposed by Clarendon, to consist 
of ** several principal merchants of the several com- 
panies," to which he would add some gentlemen of 
quality and experience, and for their greater honor 
and encouragement some of the lords of his own 
Privy Cotmcil.' It was duly organized in Decem- 
ber, 1660. Clarendon was appointed president of 
the board, among the members of which were Ash- 
ley, Colleton, Noell, Povey, and two members from 
each of the great trading companies,* men al- 
ready familiar with the trade of the plantations. 

> Privy Council Register (MS.), Charles II., III., 125. etc. 

* Cobbett, Hist, of Parliament, IV., 128; Life of Clarendon, 
written by himself (ed. 1798), III., 201. 

■ Bannister, Writings of W. Patterson, III., 251, 252, quoted 
by Egerton, British Colonial Policy, 75, n. 


The board, of which five members constituted a 
quorum, at once perfected its organization and 
appointed sub-conmiittees for the several colonies. 
The members were expected to inform themselves 
of the state of the plantations, and procure copies 
of the grants under which they were settled; to 
correspond with the governors and require accoimts 
of the laws and governments from them; to use 
means for bringing the colonies **into a more cer- 
tain, civil, and uniform way of government"; to 
investigate the colonial policies of the other European 
states; to secure transportation of noxious and 
tmprofitable persons to the plantations; to propa- 
gate the Gospel, and to have a general oversight 
of all matters relating to the plantations.* 

Of the activities of this council we know but little. 
Some of their minutes and reports are preserved, 
and Pepys and Eveljm occasionally refer to their 
proceedings. The merchants seem to have been 
largely in control, and till 1663 displayed consider- 
able efficiency. They performed their work largely 
through committees, and busied themselves with 
the affairs of Jamaica, Barbadoes, New England, 
and Virginia. The membership was changed in 
1668, 1670, and again in 1672, when the councils 
of trade and foreign plantations were united under 
the presidency of Ashley, with John Locke as sec- 
retary and treasurer and many of the former mem- 
bers as colleagues. 

> N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col Hist., III., 34-36. 


This joint committee was to form a "standing 
council in and for all the aff ajrrs which doe conceme 
the navigation, commerce, or trade, as well do- 
mestic as forraigne, of these our kingdoms and our 
forraigne colonyes and plantations."* 

These frequent changes in the select council were 
due to the belief among those in authority that such 
a separate board possessing no plenary powers was 
ineflScient and ** without any considerable advantage 
to his Majesty or the plantations." A contem- 
porary expresses a very general opinion when he 
says: "The council is obliged to have a continual 
recourse to superior ministers and cotmcils, which 
oftentimes gives great and prejudicial delays and 
usually begets new or slower deliberations and 
results than the matter in hand may stand in need 
of." It was therefore felt necessary to appoint 
commissioners "out of the Privy Coimcil, tmder the 
great seal, to consider the plantations, to give di- 
rections in ordinary cases, and in extraordinary to 
report to the king and coimcil . . . [commissioners] 
empowered to act and order with as ample an au- 
thority as the commissioners of the admiralty now 
do." When in 1668 Charles II. reorganized the 
administrative methods of the Privy Council and 
adopted a system of "fix't and established com- 
mittees," he set up a standing committee of the 

» ShafUshury Papers, MSB. in Public Record Office, X.. Nos. 
8 (vi.-ix.), 9. 10 (commissions, instructions, members added in 
1670, 1673). 


council, to act in conjunction with the separate 
board and to consider whatever concerned "his 
Majesty's forraigne plantations." This dual ar- 
rangement lasted fifteen years, but cannot have been 
successful; for in 1674 the select council of which 
Shaftesbury was president was abolished, and its 
duties were entrusted to a new standing committee 
of the council composed of twenty-four members, 
henceforth known as the Lords of Trade/ 

This conmiittee held its first meeting on February 
9> 1675, though the commission is dated a month 
later. At first, five constituted a quorum, afterwards 
three, but the number present rarely fell below six or 
seven, while frequently ten, fifteen, and twenty at- 
tended the meetings. The committee generally sat 
in the cotmcil chamber at Whitehall, and it was at- 
tended by many of the most important men of the 
kingdom, including many men trained under the 
Protectorate. The king, the duke of York, Prince 
Rupert, the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishop 
of London, the chancellor of the exchequer, the lord 
privy seal, t^ie lord high chancellor, the vice cham- 
berlain, and others attended, some of them fre- 
quently. Occasionally the discussion in the council 
chamber was only ended by the entrance of the king 
to hold a meeting of his council. As compared with 
the inefficiency and inactivity of the permanent 
board of trade after 1720, a body too often made 

' Egerion MSS.^ in British Museum, 2395, f. 276, 2543, f. 205; 
Journal of the Lords of Trade^ I., z, 8. 


up of needy politicians and placemen, the com- 
mittees from 1674 to 1688 display dignity and devo- 
tion to business. 

The committee was a hard-working body that 
met frequently and sat long. It considered care- 
fully every matter that came before it; sought to 
settle every difficulty as expeditiously as possible; 
obtained information from every available source, 
summoning and closely questioning merchants, sea- 
men, factors, colonial agents, and even colonial 
proprietaries like Penn and Baltimore. It pur- 
chased books,^ maps, charts, and globes, bade Locke 
bring in all records and dociunents of the old com- 
mission, and even talked of continuing Purchas's 
Pilgrimage from accounts to be sent in by merchants 
and sea-captains. In its wide range of interests it 
discussed treaties with foreign cotmtries, watched 
carefully the workings of the great companies, lis- 
tened to their quarrels and complaints, called on the 
commissioners of customs to suggest new methods 
of encotiraging trade, and asked for reports from 
these officials and the clerk of Parliament, on the 
trade of England. It demanded lists of English 
ships with the burden of each, and endeavored to 
lay down rules for the more efficient interpretation 
of the navigation acts. It prepared instructions 
and despatches, wrote the king's proclamations, and 
even dealt with the granting of patents for inventions. 

' See catalogue of committee's library in N. E. Historical and 
Genealogical Register, XXXVIII., a6z. 


Towards the colonies the committee's attitude 
was one of eminent fairness. Large questions, such 
as the settling of a new colony, or the appointment 
of a new colonial governor, or the approval of a new 
series of colonial laws, often came before it. Other 
matters were called to its attention by petition or 
complaint, and naturally only those colonies in 
which disputes and difficulties arose were discussed at 
its meetings. Massachusetts and Virginia, Jamaica, 
Barbadoes, and other West Indian colonies were well 
known to its members ; Rhode Island, the Carolinas, 
and Maryland were occasionally brought to its 
notice; while New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, 
and Pennsylvania are rarely mentioned in the 
minutes of its meetings. 

In difficult cases, such as those touching the 
charters of the Bermuda and the Massachusetts 
Bay companies, the members of the board showed 
fairness and gave abundant opportunity for the col- 
onies to state their respective cases. They never 
acted arbitrarily, and were always ready to discount 
the statements of prejudiced persons, and to compel 
complainants to prove their charges. In doubtful 
points of law they would order the charters to be 
scrutinized, or would submit the question to the 
legal advisers of the crown. Sometimes they would 
transfer the question to the king in cotmcil to 
decide. Naturally, they were ignorant of a great 
deal that was going on in the colonies, and were 
out of sympathy with the political ideas and practices 


that had taken root in many of them. Hence, they 
sent over men like Edward Randolph, who were in 
sympathy with their own point of view, and de- 
pended, tmforttmately, too much on the evidence 
submitted by such representatives. 

Nevertheless, the Lords of Trade tried to remedy 
these deficiencies and to obtain satisfactory and 
adequate information. They sent out written 
queries to the colonies, asking for full answers re- 
garding their affairs, and the answers they received 
are among our best sources of information regarding 
the colonies. They called for lists of governors and 
copies of the charters and grants, and tried to 
acctunulate among their records the details of the 
history of each colony. They recommended, in 
1675, the sending of a commission of five men **of 
sobriety and discretion [* to Massachusetts in order 
to obtain **a full information of things which at 
this distance (and where no per son appears on th e 
other side) seem^'Veiy dUfk.'* i'hey allowed any 
individual to send in a petition or address, on what 
appear to be often trivial subjects, and they claimed 
the right to act on these in the first instance. Even 
appeals from the plantations to the king in cotmcil . 
seem to have come to the attention of the Lords of 
Trade before passing on to the Privy Cotmcil itself. 

They draughted all the governors' commissions 
and instructions, debating every clause with care, 
even going so far at times as to call on the governor 

* Journal of tk€ Lords of Trad§, I., aa. 


himsetf to suggest modificatknis and additknis. The 
development of the governor's functions at the 
hands of the Lords of Trade forms an instructive 
phase of the history of the royal administration. 
It is evident that these men had little appreciation 
of the democratic forces at work in the colonies, and 
they must have wondered at times at the ill-success 
of some of their appointees. 

The committee was constantly called upon to in- 
terpret the navigation acts; and tnany important 
features of the administrative act of 1696 can be 
foimd already worked out in the minutes of its 
meetings. The Lords soon discovered that tnany 
violations of the acts were taking place in the col- 
onies ; and the complaints of merchants and others 
seem to indicate that New England was especially 
guilty. They therefore made inquiry as to how 
far the navigation acts took "cognizance of New 
England, what violations had been observed in the 
matter of that trade, and of what ill-consequence 
in point of profit to his Majesty and the kingdom 
such abuse of those people may be estimated at " * 
They not only insisted that all governors be required 
to take oath and give bond according to law, but 
made a special recommendation that the New 
England governors should be required to swear that 
they would put the acts into force. 

The Lords of Trade inquired further whether a 
ship that laded enumerated commodities and paid 

^ Journal of the Lords of Trade, I., 23. 


the duty in the plantation (if declaration should 
be made that it was botind for another Eng- 
lish plantation) was not exempt from any other 
bonds and was not then at Uberty to cany such 
commodities to what part of the world it pleased.* 
As early as 1678 the question came up whether a 
royal governor could erect courts of admiralty, and 
whether vice-admiralty powers came from the king 
or the lord high admiral. A decision was reached 
that the king had full power to create a vice-admiral, 
but that the commission and instructions were to 
come from the lord high admiral.* These queries 
show that the committee was often very uncertain 
how to act, and that the interpretation of the 
navigation acts was a matter of time and expe- 

The machinery for carrying out the navigation 
acts in the colonies during the period under dis- 
cussion was very imperfect and incomplete. An 
official resident in England was appointed in 166 1 
to farm the revenues of the foreign plantations.' 
In the colonies no royal customs officers existed 
except the governors, before the passage of the 
navigation act of 1672 ; although the farmers of the 
customs proposed such officers as early as 1663.* 
This proposition does not appear to have been acted 

» Journal of the Lords of Trade, I., 67, 68. 

* Ibid., II., 197, 198. 

» Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1661-1668, § 43S- 

* N. Y, Docs. Rel. to Col, Hist., III., 48-50. 


upon, and the governors, who were very lax in the 
performance of their duties, were left to administer 
the acts very much as they pleased. 

The first revenue official appointed by the crown 
to go to America seems to have been Edward 
Digges, who was sent to Virginia in 1669, in pur- 
suance of an order of cotincil concerning the redress 
of some neglects or abuses in the plantations. The 
duties of this office were amalgamated with those 
of the auditor of the revenue, first created by act 
of assembly in Virginia and afterwards controlled 
apparently by the crown.* The auditor examined 
the public accotints, dealt with the redress of 
abuses, and returned bonds. On May 19, 1680, the 
system of auditing the colonial revenues was 
still further improved by the appointment of a 
surveyor and auditor-general in England, the first 
appointee being William Blathwayt, secretary of 
the Privy Cotincil.' To him were referred all 
petitions sent to the Lords of the Treasury that 
in any way concerned the finances of the royal 
colonies. The office demanded judgment and ex- 
perience, and it is noteworthy that Blathwayt and 
his successor, Horatio Walpole (appointed in 171 8), 
held the office for nearly eighty years. 
^^The navigation act of 1663 created a naval 

* Cat. of State Pap., Col., 1669-1674, § 104. 

*CcU, of State Pap., Col., 1 681-1685, J 241; Cal. of Treasury 
Pap, 1 7 14-17 19, 387; Hartwell, Blair, and Chilton, Present StaU 
of Virginia, 157. 


officer to be appointed by the governor and paid 
by the fees of his office. The first direct mention 
of such an officer, however, does not appear until 
1672, in connection with Barbadoes, although it is 
then stated that there were earlier appointees.* 
The naval officers were required to make entries 
and keep particular accounts of all imports and 
exports, of shipping, burden, guns, etc., whence they 
came and whither they were boimd, and to send 
quarterly reports to England.* They handled no 
customs revenue, for that was the business of the 

The latter official, whose work it was to collect 
the plantation duty established by the act of 1672, 
makes his first appearance in 1673 in Barbadoes and 
Antigua. William Dyer, husband of the Quaker 
Mary Dyer, was appointed collector for New York 
in 1674, Giles Bland for Virginia in the same year, 
Rousby for Maryland in 1676, Miller for Albemarle 
in 1677; Gibbes for "Carolina and Roanoke" before 
1685, Muschamp for South Carolina in the latter 
year, and Walliam for Pennsylvania, as early as 
May, i688.' Before the year 1677, there were no 
collectors in New England, because, as the com- 

* Colonial Entry Book, a8, 86-93. 

^Ccd. of State Pap., Col., 1677-1680, § 1590. 

■ Declared Accounts, MSS. in Public Record Office; Pipe Office, 
Roll 1056; Treasury, In Letters, Indexes, Reference Book, III., 
148 (Muschamp's Petition); Md. Archives, V., 274; Cal, of State 
Pap., Col., 1685-1688, S 639; Colonial Entry Books, 63 (MSS. Re- 
port of March 25, 1689) ; Pa. Col. Records, I., 297 (335); MSS. In- 
structions for Collector (British Musetun, Add. MSS, 28089, f. 3i). 
VOL v.— 3 



missioners of the customs reported to the Lords of 
Trade, the New England colonies grew none of the 
entimerated commodities which were liable to the 
plantation duty/ But in that year, as the result 
of Randolph's recent visit, the office of collector, 
stirveyor, and searcher of customs in the colonies of 
New England was established,' and Randolph be- 
came the first appointee. He was authorized by 
his commission to search for prohibited goods and 
seize such ships as traded contrary to law; he had 
power to appoint deputies (who were to reside in 
different parts of New England), to give them in- 
structions, and to supervise their conduct. A sim- 
ilar office was held by Patrick Mien or Mein, who 
in 1685 was ** stirveyor of his Majesties plantations 
on the continent of America,*' and in 1687 of cer- 
tain of the West Indies also.' In later instructions 
the surveyor was empowered to inspect and control 
the management of the collector's business and to 
audit his accoimts.* The collector for New Eng- 
land after 168 1 held his office by royal letters-patent 
under the great seal, but all the others were ap- 
pointed by the commissioners of customs in Eng- 
land, and resided in the principal ports of the plan- 
tations. They were constantly quarrelling, with 

* Journal of the Lords of Trade, I., 69. 

*Col, Entry Book, Public Record Office, 60, 357-359. 

' Treasury, Miscellanea, King's Warrant Books (Public Record 
Office), III., 214; ibid.. In Letters, Indexes, Reference Book, V., 
308; Pa. Col. Records, I., 297 (337). 

* British Museum, Add. MSS., 28089, f. 34. 


governors on one side and people on the other, and 
on the whole do not appear to have been a very 
estimable class of men. 

The earlier navigation acts made no provision for 
special courts with jurisdiction over breaches of 
the law. The "courts of record*' mentioned in the 
act of 1660 refers to the common law courts in 
England, though there is reason to believe that the 
high court of admiralty, though not legally deemed 
a court of record at this time, occasionally tried 
cases that had to do with evasion of the trade laws. 
The colonies, however, provided themselves with 
such Courts, some of them before the navigation acts 
were passed. Rhode Island erected an admiralty 
court in 1653, at the time of the Dutch war; Virginia 
passed an act in 1660 authorizing the governor and 
council to be a cotirt of admiralty; Massachusetts 
(1673) and Connecticut (1684) authorized their re- 
spective courts of assistants to act in that capacity ; 
Plymouth placed this power in the hands of the 
governor and assistants in 1684; and in the same 
year Pennsylvania gave the power to the president 
and members of the coimcil.* New York declared 
in 1678 that in her colony admiralty cases had been 
tried by a special commission or by a court com- 
posed of the mayor and aldermen.* From the point 

'Arnold, Hist, of R. /., I., 246; Hening, Statutes, I., 537; 
Mass. Col. Records, IV., pt. ii., 575; Conn. Col. Records, III., 
95; Plymouth Col. Records, VI., 139, 140; Pa. Col. Records, I., 
69 (lai, 132). 

« .V. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col Hist., III., 260. 


of view of admiralty jurisdiction and procedure, all 
these courts were irregular and illegal; and it is 
noteworthy that nowhere, except in Maryland (1639) 
was a regular admiralty court established till about 
1697,* when a general system, at least on paper, was 

During the first half of the seventeenth century the 
English government made scarcely any attempt to 
control the colonies through a system of agents. Such 
colonial agents were sent over only when required.* 
The earliest went from Virginia in 1624 to defend 
the charter of that colony. Others were despatched 
afterwards by various colonies to defend some 
particular cause: as when Rhode Island resisted 
Coddington's attempt to obtain a charter for him- 
self as governor of Newport and Aquidneck; and 
when Virginia tried to annul the grant to Arlington 
and Culpeper. Agents were sometimes sent to gain 
colonial privileges, as when Winthrop for Connecti- 
cut, Clarke for Rhode Island, and Increase Mather 
for Massachusetts, sought to obtain charters for 
those colonies. Agents were sent also to answer 
charges and settle boundary disputes, as when 
Maryland instructed her agents to oppose the de- 
mands of Penn. Some of the colonies — Connecti- 
cut, for example — employed English residents to do 
business that did not require a special representa- 
tive. Eventually, however, the Lords of Trade, 

* Md, Archives, I., 46. 

' Tanner, in Political Sciince Quarterly, XVI., 94*49. 


warned by the difficulty of obtaining agents from 
Massachiisetts, inserted in Penn's charter the pro- 
vision, made for the first time, that an agent be 
appointed to reside in or near the city of London. 

Eqtially indefinite was the attitude of the home 
government towards colonial legislation. No colony 1 
was allowed to make laws contrary to those of Eng- / 
land, though at first no colony was required to 
transmit its acts to England for acceptance or 
rejection. Not until the issue of the charter to 
Penn was such requirement made, and then the 
colony was called upon to transmit its laws to 
England within five years after their passage, and 
the council was to act upon them within six months 
after their receipt. A similar clause was inserted 
in the Massachusetts charter of 1691, when the 
period was limited to three years and no restriction 
was imposed upon the action of the council. The 
charter corporations always denied the validity of 
the acts of Parliament in America imless re-enacted 
by their own assemblies; and Massachusetts re- 
fused to acknowledge the right of the council to 
invalidate her laws even when contrary to those of 

The idea of creating a uniform system of adminis- 
tration in the colonies, of bringing all to conform 
to a common type, and of rendering them more 
dependent on the home government by union imder 

* Mass. Col. Records, V., aoo, aox ; Hutchinson Papers, II., 



the crown, developed very slowly. The charter 
of the Virginia company was dissolved in 1624, and 
that of Massachusetts threatened in 163 5-1 63 7; 
but these annulments were no part of a common 
plan. The Council for Foreign Plantations, desir- 
ing to administer the navigation acts more effi- 
ciently, proposed to Charles II. in 1661 that he 
take all the existing proprietary colonies into his 
own hands and creat^no new ones in the future;* 
but, though this plan for a uniform and centralized 
i colonial organization was emphasized in Noell and 

Povey's ** Overtures," the king allowed his personal 
inclinations to override the suggestions of the com- 
mittee. Between 1660 and 1670 six new charters 
were issued : the four new colonies of the Carolinas, 
New York, the Jerseys, and Bahamas were foimded ; 
and Connecticut and Rhode Island received new 
Uli^ charters. Even as late as 1676 the cotmcil com- 
^ mittee could say that **to consider New England so 
as to bring them imder taxes and impositions or to 
send thither a governor to raise forttme from them 
cannot be of any use or service to his Majesty." * 
■^IVTien, however, the reports of illegal trading and 
of quarrels between the collectors and the colonists 
began to come in, the Lords of Trade viewed the 
matter differently. Breaches of the acts of trade 
/ affected the king's income, a matter of great concern 
/ to the committee, which existed for the very purpose 

|{ 1/ > Cat. of State Pap., Col., 1 661-1668, { 3. 

iL *Ibid., 1675-1676, i 813. 




of safeguarding and increasing the customs revenues 
of the crown. The committee had akeady declared 
that the plantations could enact no laws touching 
the king's revenue without the king's "particular 
knowledge" ; and had already studied how best the 
colonies might be brought to a closer dependency 
on the crown in matters of trade. After 1680 
complaints came in rapidly: Maryland, the Ber- 
mudas, and Massachttsetts were the first colonies 
to give oflEence in the eyes of the board: the 
proprietary of Maryland and the companies in 
Bermuda and in Massachusetts were warned that 
continued violations of the acts would lead to 
the forfeiture of their charters. 

Plans were made for the issue of writs of quo 
warranto against the corporations, and in 168 1 the 
writs were issued. The Bermuda company, resident 
in London, and having only a business connection 
with the colony, gave up its charter after a brief 
struggle ; but the Massachusetts company died hard, 
staving oflE the inevitable result till 1684. 

From the point of view of the lords who composed 
the conmiittee, a imion of the northern colonies had 
become a financial necessity, and it was carried 
out by the appointment of a governor-general of 
New England in 1686. The policy was neither 
arbitrary nor wilful, nor even an idea of James II., 
for the committee fathered it from the beginning. 
It was simply a part of a larger policy that subordi- 
nated the colonies to the crown and the ldngdom« 


Notwithstanding the great services of the com- 
mittee, the last renewal of its members took place 
January 27, 1688, when all the lords of the Privy 
Council were constituted a standing committee for 
trade and plantations. Little business was done 
between October 25 and November. 20, England was 
on the eve of a revolution. After October 17 the 
names of the members present are not recorded. 
On February 6, 1689, the last meeting was held, 
and it is a ctuious coincidence that the last minute 
in the journal records the receipt of letters from 
Andros and Randolph. 

February 16, 1689, three dajrs after William and 
Mary were declared king and queen of England, a 
new committee of twelve members was appointed 
to take cognizance of the affairs of trade and 
plantations. This body remained in control until 
the establishment of the permanent Board of Trade 
and Plantations in 1696. It is significant that the 
new Lords of Trade were as eager as had been their 
predecessors to bring the colonies into a condition 
of closer dependence on the crown, not so much for 
the sake of the revenues as to provide for adequate 
defence against the French.* 

^ Md. Archives, VIII., 100, 10 x. 


H a 01 ^1 


on 1 
in t 






AS a whole, the colonists of New England were 
i of the same political faith, and conducted their 
governments according to the same general plan. 
So far as possible they held aloof from all connection 
with king. Privy Council, and Lords of Trade ; and, 
having made their settlements without assistance 
from England, they were quite content to get on 
without the help of those who had legal authority 
over them. No royal governors or other appointees 
were present among them to arouse discontent, and 
between the freemen and those whom the freemen 
elected to represent them no serious conflict ever 
arose. The few royalists who lived in the colony 
exercised no influence in government, and were 
powerless to alter the convictions of the majority. 
The New-Englanders would make no compromise 
with the doctrines of divine right and passive 
obedience, and had as little patience with a loyal 
follower of the Stuarts as James II. had with a 
believer in the rights of a majority. They looked 
upon all the king's agents as tyrannical; the king 



in turn deemed the New-Englanders factious and 
rebellious.- Hence any interference on the part of 
a Stuart, however much he might justify it from 
the point of view of his wars, his revenue, and his 
prerogative, or by the fact that the crown itself 
was the supreme authority over all the colonies, 
was sure to lead to trouble and possible revolt. 
The self-government which the king ignored was 
as the breath of life to the New England col- 

In 1650 the commissioners of the New England 
Confederation, formed in 1643 by Massachtisetts, 
Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven, arranged 
the treaty of Hartford with the Dutch, fixing the 
botmdary between New England and New Nether- 
land at Rye on the main-land and Oyster Bay on 
Long Island.* This truce with the Dutch lasted but 
two years : New Haven was angry because the Dutch 
had prevented her traders from settling on the 
Delaware; and both Connecticut and New Haven 
held Stuyvesant responsible for a number of Indian 
massacres that had taken place on the frontier near 
Stamford. When the ** encroachments" of the 
Dutch and the question of a declaration of war were 
brought before the commissioners in 1652, seven 
of them declared that they felt "a call of God to 
make war upon the Dutch and avenge the destruc- 

^ Plymouth Col. Records, IX., 18-21; X., 171-190; N€W 
Haven Col. Records , II., 5, 6. Cf. Tyler, England in America^ 
chap, xviii. 


tion of so many dear Baints of God which is imputed 
to the Dutch governor and fiscal." 

The eighth commissioner, Bradstreet, of Massachu- 
setts, took the ground that a majority of the com- 
missioners had no right to authorize a declaration 
of war. Bradstreet was upheld by the elders and 
court of the colony. In order to avoid a war that 
she did not wish and that might have imperilled 
her own leadership, Massachusetts violated the 
Articles of the Confederation and threatened the 
existence of the union. Connecticut and New 
Haven in anger threatened to withdraw, and were 
appeased only when the Coimcil of State in England, 
to which they had applied for instructions, over- 
ruled the decision of Massachusetts and ordered 
war.* Cromwell, as we have seen, sent over Major 
Sedgwick to co-operate with the colonists, but the 
expedition was stopped by the declaration of peace. 

When danger of war was over and the troops 
which had been gathered for the attack had been 
disbanded, Massachusetts, desirous that the Con- 
federation should continue, reversed her former 
decision and yielded the right of a majority to rec- 
onrmiend a declaration of war.' Her submission 
was as humble as her opposition had been vehement ; 
but the Confederation never regained its lost har- 
mony. Much of its importance departed after the 

* Plymouth CoL Records ^ X., 33, 54, 56 ; Mass. Col. Records, 
IV., pt. i., 144, 165-171; Col. of State Pap., Col., 1574-1660, 
pp. 386, 387. ^Ibid., X., 75, 76, 114. 


conquest of New Netherland by the English in 
1664 and the incorporation of New Haven by 
Connecticut in the same year; and for a time it 
ceased to hold any meetings whatever. With the 
resumption of the sessions of the commissioners an 
attempt was made to restore the Confederation to 
its former state of efficiency, but without success. 
Opposition to it arose within the colonies them- 
selves, and men began to say that the meetings 
entailed a needless expense and accomplished noth- 
ing for the good of the colonies. After languishing 
until 1684, the New England Confederation came 
to an end. 

The failure of the Confederation to effect a per- 
manent imion was in no small measure due to the 
prominence and power of the Massachusetts Bay 
colony. After the crisis of 1640, when decreasing 
immigration threatened the prosperity of New Eng- 
land, Massachusetts gained pre-eminence among her 
neighbors because of her greater trade and riches, 
the number of her towns, and the wider experience 
and broader education of her leading men.* After 
1650 the authorities at Boston avoided, as far as 
possible, all entanglement with English affairs, and 
resisted all attempts of Cromwell to interfere with 
their concerns. They refused to proclaim Richard 
Cromwell protector when ordered to do so, and at 
all times conducted themselves, to all intents and 
purposes, as a sovereign state. The general court 

* Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass, Bay, I., 206, n. 


of the colony levied taxes, provided for military 
defence, erected inferior corporations like that of 
Harvard College,* regulated courts of justice, con- 
trolled the right of appeal, and assumed the high- 
est prerogatives of sovereignty in coining money 
and hanging offenders, such as murderers, witches, 
and Quakers.' 

This independent position fostered among the 
inhabitants of the Bay a spirit of superiority and 
self-content that was not always commendable. In 
a long controversy between the Frenchmen D'Aulnay 
and La Tour regarding the governorship of Acadia, 
Massachusetts aided La Tour, thus again disre- 
garding the Articles of Confederation. In all boun- 
dary disputes with Connecticut and Rhode Island, 
notably in that concerning the townships of Souther- 
town and Warwick and the lands of Misquamicut, 
Massachusetts was inclined to be overbearing, and 
showed herself exceedingly skilful in the art of 
contriving claims and disingenuous in enforcing 

In spite of the protests of Mason and Gorges, 
who had obtained grants of lands between the 
Kennebec and Merrimac rivers as early as 1623, 
she extended her jurisdiction in that quarter also, 
and laid claim to the entire territory.' From 1651 
to 1665 Kittery, Agamenticus, Wells, Saco, and 
Cape Porpoise sent deputies to the general assembly 

• Mass, Col, Records, IV., pt. i., 12-14. 

*Ibid,, 48, 104, zz8, 419. * Ibid,, 70, X57-165. 


at Boston, and the whole region was brought under 
the authority of the Bay. There was truth in 
Randolph's statement, made in 1676, that ''Massa- 
chusetts having the pre-eminence takes the liberty 
to claim as far as their convenience and interest 
directs." * 

In religious matters as in political, Massachusetts 
was no less determined to have her own way, and 
she labored imceasingly to keep herself untouched 
by other religious doctrines and ideas. Having 
driven out Roger Williams and Ann Hutchinson, 
the Bay authorities were certainly not likely to 
admit Quakers. Mary Fisher and Anne Austin, 
who reached New England in 1656, were promptly 
lodged in jail, and afterwards shipped back to 
Barbadoes, whence they came. Others who fol- 
lowed them to Massachusetts suffered a like fate. 
To give legal warrant for their action, the leaders 
at Boston persuaded the United Commissioners to 
recommend that each colony pass a law against the 
Quakers, a recommendation which the Massachusetts 
assembly promptly and rigorously carried out' 
and followed by a course of persecution unequalled 
in any of the colonies. Many Quakers were im- 
prisoned; three — Robinson, Stevenson, and Mary 
Dyer — ^were hanged. An arrogance of power seemed 
to possess the colony, an intolerance that brooked 
no check or control. The government of "godly 

* Hutchinson Papers^ II., 223. 

* Mass. Col. Records, IV., pt. i., 277. 


men" was in its way as tyrannical as ever had been, 
or was to be, the government of a Stuart. 

This unusual independence of Massachusetts, char- 
acterized by self-government, freedom of trade, ex- 
emption from outside interference, and a some- 
what domineering way of dealing with adjoining 
colonies, must be taken into account if one is to 
understand the history of the colony from 1660 to 
1689. Cromwell, engrossed by public affairs at 
home, and in sympathy with the religious and 
political views of Massachusetts, let the colony alone. 
The Massachusetts agent, Leverett, skilfully warded 
off aU complaints against the colony in the period 
before 1660, so that it rarely came to the attention 
of the home authorities,* and, by gaining the ear 
of the Protector, he was able to divert the charges of 
Rhode Island, the Quakers, and the heirs of royal- 
ists like Mason and Gorges, whose complaints were 
purely individual, and in no way touched the revenue 
or policy of the Protector. 

After the Restoration, Massachusetts could expect 
no such friendly treatment from Charles II. as she 
had received from Cromwell; nevertheless the king 
was inclined to be conciliatory. He and Claren- 
don wished to make the colonies profitable, and 
were not disposed to cause trouble so long as the 
colonists did nothing to thwart this policy. But 
the coimcil for foreign plantations, which at the 
very outset had received a shower of complaints 

^ Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass. Bay, I., 190-194. 


against Massachusetts from interested parties, took 
a different view, and in 1662 sent a vigorous order 
to Boston, bidding the general court proclaim the 
king **in a most solemn manner," and apply itself 
strictly to "conformity and obedience to his 

The king, however, does not appear to have been 
greatly disturbed by reports of the neglect of the 
colony in its duty to him; for in 1662 he wrote a 
letter confirming the charter, and ascribing to the 
iniquity of the times, and not to the intention of the 
people, all departures from the privileges conferred 
in that document.' He approved of the law against 
the Quakers, but broke down at one blow the ex- 
clusive religious and political policy of the colony 
by demanding that the Massachusetts authorities 
grant full liberty of worship to all members of the 
Anglican church, and concede the right to vote to 
all freeholders who possessed competent estates. 
During the ensuing twenty-five years the colony 
made many efforts to evade these demands, and 
an Anglican church was not erected in Boston till 
1686; nevertheless, from this time forward the gov- 
ernment by ** godly men" gave way to a system 
based on a property qualification. 

Connecticut and New Haven meanwhile were 
growing rapidly in size and strength. Connecticut 
accepted the advice of Sir William Boswell, Eng- 

* Cal. of State Pap., Col, 1661-1668, { 66. 
^ Ibid., { 314. 

Bi m ■'■ 


lish ambassador at The Hague, to "crowd on, 
crowding the Dutch out of those places which they 
have occupied, without hostility or any act of vio- 
lence." * By the treaty of Hartford she advanced 
her western frontier to Rye, and absorbed most of 
Long Island in 1653. 

While the war with the Dutch was in progress, 
Coniiecticut seized the House of Good Hope at Hart- 
ford, and the next year annexed the Dutch lands 
there. In 1640 the colony took Southampton, Long 
Island, under its care; in 1649 ^^^ again in 1657 it 
received Easthampton, and in 1660 Htmtington, into 
its jurisdiction.' Within the colony the number of 
towns increased from three to eleven, and in the 
decade from 1650 to 1660 the assessed value of 
property rose more than a fifth. In 1657, in order 
to prevent the admission of imdesirable persons into 
the voting body, the franchise was for the first time 
limited to a property qualification. The old genera- 
tion was passing away: Hooker died in 1647, Hajmes 
in 1654, and in 1653 Ludlow went to Virginia.* 
A new generation had grown up, made of the same 
stuff as the old, but more aggressive and less 
scrupulotis. Its members were actuated by the 
same love for the colony ; but their actions, legal it 
may be, were wanting at times in a high-minded 
regard for the rights of others. 

* Conn. CoL Records, I., 565. " Ibid., 254, 275. 

* Ibid., 57a; Easthampton Records, I., la, 140; Huntington 
Records, I., a3. * Taylor, Roger Ludlow, 145. 

TOL- T." 


That their attitude was due in part to a sense 
of their own insecurity, we may not doubt. Had 
the king desired to drive them from their territory 
they would have been without legal defence. They 
had bought their lands of the Indians, but they 
possessed no corporate powers of government and 
no land title that would stand for a moment the 
test of inspection. The purchase of the Warwick 
patent (1644)* was only a device designed for use in 
emergencies. The Connecticut colonists knew that 
their position was insecure, for in 1645 they joined 
with New Haven in sending an agent to England 
to obtain from the parliamentary commissioners 
"common privileges to both in the distinct jurisdic- 
tions.** At the same time they despatched Fenwick 
to England **to agitate the business concerning the 
enlargement of the patent.'" Neither effort was 
successful, and Connecticut remained without legal 
document of any kind to show for the money she had 
spent, or to defend her against royal inquiry or a 
writ of quo warranto. When Massachusetts denied 
her right to exact river tolls at Saybrook from the 
people of Springfield, situated farther up the river 
above Hartford, and asked tmcomfortable questions 
regarding her claims and title, Connecticut had lit- 
tle to say. 

* Hoadly, Warwick Patent (Acorn Club, Publications, No. 7); 
Egerton AfSS., in British Museum, 2648, f. i. 

* At water, Hist, of New Haven, 569; Conn. Col. Records, I., 
126, 128. 


In July, 1660, the regicides Goffe and Whalley 
arrived in America. Massachusetts and Connecti- 
cut gave them welcome and aid tmtil the king's 
proclamation appeared, ordering the arrest of the 
fugitives. After this the two colonies conducted 
themselves with great circumspection, and while 
there can be little doubt that Winthrop would have 
been as glad to aid the fugitives as was Daven- 
port, he was tactful enough not to let it be known 
to those who were in pursuit. Kellond and Kirke, 
the king's messengers, could report that **the hon- 
orable governor [of Connecticut] carried himself 
very nobly to [them] and was very diligent to sup- 
ply [them] with all manner of conveniences for the 
prosecution [of the fugitives] and promised that 
all search should be made after them, which was 
afterwards performed'* ; while they had to say that 
New Haven was ** obstinate and pertinacious in 
contempt of his Majestie."* 

The New Haven governor and magistrates an- 
ticipated trouble for the aid they had given the 
regicides, and six weeks after the fugitives had made 
their escape, solemnly proclaimed Charles II., ac- 
knowledging themselves to be "his Majesties legal 
and faithful subjects." ' The New Haven authorities 
were not courtiers. The very issue of its proclama- 
tion shows that the colony was frightened at the 
outlook, and there is no doubt that many in authority 

* Hutchinson Papers , II., 52-56. 

* New Haven Col. Records, II., 420-423. 


were dttcouraged because of the discontent that 
widely prevailed in the colony. 

At the court session of New Haven, May 39, 
1661, two occurrences foreshadowed the coming 
stomL Connecticut entered a vigorous and al- 
most threatening protest against the work of a 
committee, appointed by the township of New 
Haven in April, 1660, to mark out the northern 
boundary of the town. Connecticut said that the 
bounds decided on were within her territory. This 
unexpected assertion — the first gun in the campaign 
for annexation — aroused the colony of New Haven 
to appoint a committee to treat with Connecticut 
regarding her "seeming right to this jurisdiction." 
The second occurrence was the demand of the non- 
freemen, once more expressed, for the privil^es 
and liberties that were denied them. The magis- 
trates refused to make any changes in their funda- 
mental law, and warned ** these disturbers of peace 
and troublers of Israel " against further *' factious 
if not seditiotis" outbreaks of this character.^ 

When Charles II. came to the throne and an in- 
quiry into franchises seemed imminent, Connecti- 
cut took definite action. In March, 1661, Winthrop 
draughted an address from the general court to the 
king, couched in those terms of intense loyalty and 
deep humility that Connecticut knew so well how 
to use when it served her purpose.* The general 

^ New Haven Col. Records, II., 403, 404, 409. 
* Conn. Hist. Soc, Collections, I., 583, 583. 


court also draughted a petition to the king, stating 
in frank and straightforward language exactly what 
it wanted. It authorized Winthrop, who was plan- 
ning to go to England, to present the address and 
the petition and to obtain a renewal of the War- 
wick patent, the original of which had been lost 
in a fatal fire at Saybrook, or if possible to se- 
cure a charter, the terms of which it had already 
draughted. It appropriated for expenses a sum of 
;£5oo, which Fenwick had, in 1657, bequeathed to 
the colony as compensation for his failure to com- 
plete the business of the patent.^ 

Thtis equipped, Winthrop left New Amsterdam 
on July 23, 1661, and reached England by way of 
Holland in the autumn. His chances of success 
were many. He had tmusual influence at the court 
of Charles II., through a warm personal friend in the 
aged Lord Say and Sele, of the Privy Council, a 
member of the cotmcil for plantations and a friend 
of Connecticut. Moreover, Winthrop was possessed 
of great tact and an attractive personality ; he had 
travelled widely and had acquired the habits of 
courts and courtiers — ^in fact, so well known were 
his qualifications that Pl5rmouth tried to obtain his 
services for a similar errand.* 

Winthrop's cause was a good one. The home 

* Trumbull, Hist, of Conn., I., 542, 543; Conn. Col. Records, 

L. 327-329. 575- 

* Mass. Hist. Soc., Collections, 5th series, I., 39a, 394; Trum- 
bull, Hist, of Conn., I., 547. 


government was well disposed towards Connecticut, 
a colony which dutifully proclaimed the king, was 
discreet in its attitude towards Whalley and Goffe, 
the regicides who had fled to New England, and 
gave no offence in matters of trade. There is noth- 
ing to show that Winthrop employed bribery, as 
some writers have thought, but there may be truth 
in the tradition that he presented to Charles II., 
at an opportune moment, a ring that Charles I. had 
given to Winthrop's father.* The king was, however, 
to no small extent guided in his decision by his 
advisers. The council for plantations and the legal 
advisers of the crown approved of Winthrop's re- 
quest. The royal warrant was issued February 28, 
1662, and the charter passed the great seal May 
10.' One of the two copies which Winthrop ob- 
tained was sent home by way of Boston and 
"read publicly to the freemen," October 9, 1662. 
The other copy remained in England until after 
the revolution of 1689,' when it was brought to 
the colony, probably by Fitzjohn Winthrop, about 

With few modifications the Connecticut charter 
of 1662 contained the essential features of the 
Fundamental Orders and such amendments to the 
Orders as had been made by the general court since 

* Mather, Magnolia (ed. 1853), I., 158, 159. 

* Conn. Hist. Soc., Collections, I., 52; and Report, 1899, pp. 
17-20 (Hanaper office record). 

* Conn. Col. Records, I., 369; A. C. Bates, in EncyclopCBdia 
Americana, art. "Charter Oak." 

— r*Ji-'" .--r-*' 


1639. The most important change concerned the 
representation of the towns, which henceforth, 
without regard to size or population, possessed 
practically equal representation in the legislative 

Winthrop defined the botmdaries of the colony, 
which he phrased in the terms of the Warwick 
patent/ gix'ing to Connecticut all the territory 
from **the Narragansett River commonly called 
Narragansett Bay to the South Sea, bounded on 
the north bv the Massachusetts line and on the 
south by the sea, with the islands thereunto ad- 
joining"; a phrase interpreted in 1664 to include 
Long Island.' 

On October 9, 1662, the court completed its 
organization under the charter and took measures 
to affirm its title to all the territory thus named. 
It extended its jurisdiction over Stamford, Green- 
wich, and Westchester, and over Southold and all 
other Long Island towns, thus attacking the claims 
of New Amsterdam on one side and New Haven 
on the other; and it warned Mystic and Pawtucket 
not to accept the jurisdiction of any other colony 
than itself, thus casting down the gauntlet to Rhode 
Island. To strengthen its position by making its 
liberties more attractive, it reduced the franchise 
qualification from £30 to £20. If there is any 
apology for the aggressiveness of Connecticut, it 

* Mass. Hist. Soc., Collections , 5th series, IX., 33. 

• Conn, CoL Records, I., 426, 427. 


lies in the broader life and opportunity that her 
government offered to towns that had been com- 
pelled to submit, often unwillingly, to the narrower 
" liberties" of New Haven and Massachusetts. 




NEW HAVEN was doomed. Not only was she 
legally unprotected and helpless, but she was 
without political or economic strength. The inter- 
ests of the colony were largely mercantile, and its 
ventures had not proved successful. The attempt 
made in 1641 to establish a trading -post on the 
Delaware was frustrated by the Dutch and Swedes, 
involved a loss of ;£iooo, and embarrassed many of 
the wealthiest men of the colony. Five years later 
the New Haven merchants, hitherto accustomed to 
deal with England through Boston, attempted to 
open a direct trade with the mother-country, and 
sent a ship laden with goods to the value of ;65ooo. 
The ship, badly built and badly ballasted, foundered 
at sea, with all on board. 

So great was the prevailing despondency that 
many New Haven colonists returned to England, 
and others considered favorably Cromwell's pro- 
posal to transport them to Jamaica.* This project 
was abandoned, however, and the majority of the 

t Strong, in Amer. Hist. Assoc., Report, 1898, pp. 88-92. Cf. 
Tyler, EnfjUmd in Atnericu, chap. xv. 



colonists remained in New England. During the 
year that followed, Indian attacks and massacres 
created additional dismay and discontent. The 
people of Staiiiford protested in vigorous language 
against the inefficiency of the jurisdiction, the heavy 
taxation, and the limitations of the government. 
Certain inhabitants of Southold, led by Captain John 
Young, showed a desire even at this time to break 
away from New Haven,* and consented to remain 
in the colony only after the Stamford malcontents 
had been fined and bound over to keep the peace. 

The year 1653 was one of great excitement. 
Disaffected colonists spoke their minds freely re- 
garding the narrow political privileges* that New 
Haven offered. They objected to a government in 
which all political and civil and military offices were 
controlled by church-members, in which all judicial 
power was in the hands of magistrates, and trial 
by jury was forbidden. The tmsuccessful business 
ventures, the decrease of population due to a fall- 
ing off of immigration, the dangers from the Dutch 
and Indians, the quarrel with Massachusetts which 
threatened to break up the Confederation, the dis- 
content due to the policy of the oligarchy that 
controlled the government — all these conditions 
contributed to New Haven's downfall as an inde- 
pendent colony.* 

* New Haven Col. Records, II., 47-49, 51. 
' See Maverick, Description of New England, in N. E. Hist, 
and Gen, Reg., XXXIX., 45. 

f^ m I ' »" -T-- — 


Such was the situation when in 1662 Connecti- 
cut obtained the charter giving her a legal title to 
the territory of New Haven. Winthrop had drawn 
the boundaries, but there is reason to believe 
that he had expected to reach an arrangement 
with New Haven whereby, for the sake of mutual 
strength, imion could be effected imder the common 
charter, and had even entered into an imderstand- 
ing with Governor Leete of that colony/ Win- 
throp probably underestimated the tenacious ad- 
herence of Davenport and his party to the funda- 
mental laws of the colony, and did not anticipate 
the persistent non possumus that met every sug- 
gestion of annexation. He probably failed to rec- 
ognize also the strength of the party led by Bray 
Rossiter, which demanded immediate and uncon- 
ditional surrender to Connecticut.* 

While New Haven was pondering, Connecticut 
was acting. She granted the request of the people 
of Stamford, Greenwich, and Southold, the latter of 
whom in 1662, with entire disregard of the allegiance 
they owed New Haven, asked to be admitted to 
Connecticut's jurisdiction. When Rossiter and oth- 
ers of Guilford, on their individual accounts, with- 
out regard to the policy of town or colony, tendered 
themselves and their estates to Connecticut, that col- 
ony accepted them and promised to protect them.' 

* See letters in Atwater's Hisi. of New Haven, 456-460, 484; 
Steiner. in Amer. Hist. Assoc., Report, 1891, p. 216. 

' New Haven Col. Records, II., 429, 454-456. 

• Conn. CoL Records , I., 387. 


This ill-judged and illegal attempt to force the 
issue drove the moderates of New Haven over to 
the side of the ultras, and led the New Haven 
court to decide that it would not consider the 
matter of imion in any form unless Connecticut 
would order the men of Stamford and Guilford to 
return to their allegiance and recognize the in- 
tegrity of the colony/ The court of New Haven 
addressed a temperate complaint to the United 
Commissioners, and, emboldened by a favorable 
reply,* took measures at once to assert authority 
in the colony by ordering Rossiter and his fellow- 
radicals to obey its commands. 

A sort of deadlock ensued. Connecticut replied 
that if New Haven used force with Rossiter and 
his party, she would take it as done against herself; 
and New Haven could only reply, *'Is this the way 
to union?'" Finally, in February, 1664, the com- 
mittee appointed by Connecticut to take charge of 
the case promised to order the secessionists to return 
to allegiance, and declared that in the future all 
forcible actions would be ** carefully shunned and 
all grievances would be buried."* This promise, 
however, was never ratified by the Connecticut 

The controversy was finally ended by an tm- 
expected event. Early in August, 1664, informa- 

' New Haven Col. Records, II., 491, 516. 

• Plymouth Col. Records, X., 308-310. 

^ New Haven CoL Records^ II., 517-530. * Ibid., 5x6. 


tion was received in New Haven that the king had 
granted to the duke of York the territory of New 
Netherland and all the region eastward to the 
Connecticut River. Rather than suffer the humilia- 
tion of annexation to New York, New Haven pre- 
ferred to submit to Connecticut. One by one the 
towns withdrew, tmtil in December only New Haven, 
Branford, and Guilford remained to represent the 
old jurisdiction. The freemen of these towns, a 
few from Milford, and as many others "as was 
pleased to come," finally met on December 13 and 
voted to submit "as from a necessity," but with a 
** salvo jure of former rights and claim, as a people 
who have not been heard in point of plea."* The 
colonial jurisdiction was dissolved; only the sepa- 
rate towns remained, and each independently joined 
Connecticut. Davenport withdrew to Boston, where 
he died in 1669. Many families migrated to New 
Jersey, and there founded the town of Newark, 
though it is an error to suppose that Branford or 
any other town migrated with its records.* 

With Rhode Island, too, Connecticut came into 
controversy. That amphibious colony, niunbering 
in 1660 not more than a thousand souls, had for 
thirty years struggled with its neighbors for the 
right to exist. Massachusetts, Plymouth, and 
Connecticut each laid claim to some part of its 

* N€w Haven Col. Records, II., 551. 

' So erroneously stated by Doyle, in The Cambridge Modem 
History, VII., 26. 


territory. The union of the four towns in 1647 was 
but a loose compact, the conditions of which were 
never consistently observed by any of the settle- 
ments, to each of which the idea of a higher, 
sovereign power was exceedingly repugnant, " none 
submitting to supreme authority but as they 
please."* The inclination of the towns to reduce 
central authority to a minimum was as strong after 
1647 as it had been before; and they looked on the 
general assembly and the general coiut of trials as 
inferior to their own town-meetings. 

This tendency is illustrated by the career of 
William Coddington, who established a settlement 
on the island at Newport in 1639, which tmited with 
Portsmouth on the same island in 1640. The 
settlements increased rapidly in population and 
prosperity and outstripped the towns of the less 
fertile main - land.* The little commtmity was 
speedily divided into parties: Coddington, Par- 
tridge, and others, chiefly of Portsmouth, composed 
one conservative and theocratic faction ; while John 
Clarke, Easton, and their colleagues of Warwick 
and Providence, and some of Newport, liberal- 
minded and without definite religious affiliations, 
made up the other. In 1644, and again in 1648, 
Coddington applied for admission to the New 
England Confederation, but the Commissioners re- 

* Maverick, Description of New England, in N. E. Hist, and 
Gen. Reg. , XXXIX. . 44- Cf . Tyler, England in America, chap. xiv. 
> Mass. Hist. Soc., Collections, 3d series, IX., 378. 


fused the request, unless Rhode Island would come 
in as part of Plymouth ; but Newport, Warwick, and 
Providence would not agree/ 

Thwarted in his attempt to break up the colony, 
Coddington appealed to England. He sailed from 
Boston in January, 1649, and immediately applied 
for a patent, with himself as governor. Only 
Winslow, of Plymouth, opposed him,' and in- 
fluential men worked in his favor, notably Rev. 
Hugh Peters, the old enemy of Roger Williams, 
with whom, Coddington wrote, "I was merry and 
called Jiim the Arch BB. of Canterbury . . . and 
it passed very well."' Winslow could make out 
no case for Plymouth, and in April, 165 1, the 
Council of State actually commissioned Coddington 
governor of the island/ 

He returned to the colony in triumph, only to 
find the furious colonists declaring that he had 
obtained his charter by falsehood, had brought upon 
them •• disturbances and distractions," and in getting 
away the greater part of her territory had "tmdone 
the colony."* 

Steps were taken immediately to obtain a with- 
drawal of the commission, and Roger Williams and 

^ Mass. Hist. Soc., Collections^ 3d series, IX., 23, 271; Narra- 
gansett Club, Publications ^ VI., 154. 

» Cal. of State Pap., Col., i574-i66o,prp. 335-338. 

* Mass. Hist. Soc., Collections, 4th series, VII., 281-283. 

* Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1 574-1660, p. 354. 

* Narragansett Club, Publications, VI., 229, 267; R, I, Col, ReC' 
ords, I., 234; Hutchinson Papers, I., 237. 


John Clarke were sent to England to secure a 
renewal of the patent of 1644.* Williams was 
warmly welcomed by Sir Harry Vane, who exerted 
himself loyally in his behalf. Inasmuch as Codding- 
ton had injured his cause by negotiating with the 
Dutch at New Amsterdam,* Williams and Clarke 
were successful in their mission: the patent of 
1644 was confirmed and the inhabitants were or- 
dered to "go on in the name of a colony" tmtil a 
further investigation should be made.' 

In the mean time exciting events were taking 
place on the island itself. Coddington's usurpation 
of authority was thoroughly distasteful to the men 
of Newport as well as to those of Warwick and 
Providence, and they raised the cry of treason and 
of conspiracy with the Dutch. In March, 1652, a 
party of islanders captured Partridge and hanged 
him. Coddington, helpless in the face of this 
organized discontent, appealed to Winthrop to come 
over and aid him ; but without waiting for a reply 
he fled to Boston, where he surrendered the title 
deeds, and very unwillingly yielded all claim to the 
island by right of prior discovery.* His career as 
an independent governor was over, but nothing 

■ Narragansett Qub, Publications, VI., aoo, aaS-aja; R.I. Col. 
Records, I., 234. 

'AT. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., I., 497; Mass. Hist. Soc., 
Collections, 4th series, VII., 283. 

• Narragansett Club, Publications, VI., 236, 254. 

* Mass. Hist. Soc., Collections, 4th series, VII., 284; R. /• 
Col. Records, I., 50. 


further was done by the authorities at home to 
settle the controversy.* 

For three years Rhode Island was divided into 
two separate, self-governing parts,' and the patent 
of 1644 was held in abeyance. But in 1654 the 
main-land made overtures to the island for a union, 
and as the result of this appeal, in May, 1654, 
committees from each of the towns met at Warwick 
for the purpose of establishing once more a union 
under the old patent. Roger Williams was chosen 
president, and all agreed to let by-gones be by-gones. 
In 1656 the last trace of civil conflict was erased: 
Coddington made formal submission to the author- 
ity of the colony; the record of his transactions 
was exptmged from the jourr a\ and the incident 
was declared closed.* 

The history of the united colony of Rhode Island 
for the next six years was in the main peaceful, though 
controversies among the inhabitants of the towns 
were not infrequent, and disputes with Massachusetts 
and Connecticut about boundaries were common. 
With the accession of Charles II. fears naturally arose 
that the restored Stuart might listen to the appeal 
of Rhode Island's neighbors and bring to an end 
the separate existence of the colony. The general 
coxirt of Rhode Island proclaimed the king at once, 

* Narragansett Club, Publications, VI., 254, 255. 
^Providence Records, I., 76; Portsmouth Records , 61, 62; R, 

I. Col. Records, I., 273. 

* Narragansett Club, Publications, VI., 294 and note; R. I. Col, 
Records, I., 328-333. 

TOL. T.~5 


pot oa record its '"xznf^yaed hnmble afiEection'* 
for his 3fajesty, and instmcted Jc^m Clarke, who 
was still in England, to agitate tor a charter.' 
Clarke sent two petitions to the king for a ^'more 
absolute, ample, and free charter of civil incorpora- 
tion/' and laid special stress upon the fact that 
Rhode Island was the guardian of that ^'freedom 
of conscience'* which Charles himself had uphekl 
in the proclamation frcsn Breda.' The petitions 
were well received and were transmitted by the 
king to his cotmcil in March. 1661. 

Months passed and nothing further was heard 
of the matter, for Winthrop, in behalf of Connecticut, 
brought weightier influences to bear for the es- 
tablishment of boundaries that conflicted with Rhode 
Island's claims. But there is no reason for believing 
that Winthrop knew of Clarke's petition or was in 
any way responsible for the delay.' Clarke was 
equally ignorant at first of Winthrop's mission, and 
made no protest against the granting of Connecticut's 
charter until after it had passed the seals ,•* but 
he saw Winthrop before the charter was despatched 
to America, and made clear to him the manifest 
injustice of the proposed boimdaries. Winthrop 
having agreed to leave the matter to a board of ar- 
bitrators, the question was debated pro and con. in 

* R. L Col. Records, I., 432, 433, 441. 

^Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1661-1668, §§ 10, 18; R, /. CoL 
Records, I., 485-491. 

' Mass. Hist. Soc., Collections, 5th series, VIII., 75; IX., 34. 

* Ibid., IX., 33. • 


the presence of Clarendon, the lord chancellor, and 
on April 7, 1663, a decision was rendered in favor of 
Rhode Island.* The boundary - line between the 
two colonies was fixed at the Pawcatuck River, 
which henceforth was called the Narragansett, so 
that it might not be necessary to recall and alter 
Connecticut's charter. 

Even with this difficulty settled, a further delay 
ensued. Apparently Clarendon and the king were 
not satisfied with certain expressions in the draught 
of the Rhode Island charter. They called in Win- 
throp, and seem to have discussed the matter with 
him. Whatever the exact trouble was — perhaps 
the question of religious toleration — the chancellor 
does not appear to have pressed the point, and no 
changes were made in the text of the document. 
The warrant was issued by the king, and the charter 
passed the seals in July, 1663, rather *'upon the 
good opinion and confidence" that the king and 
Clarendon had in Winthrop than because of entire 
satisfaction with the provisions of the charter itself.' 

The precious document was sent to Rhode Island 
by Captain Baxter, and there, November 24, 1663, 
was ** held up on high with becoming gravity in the 
sight of the people.*' * The grateful deputies voted 
liberally their thanks to the king and Clarendon 

* R. I. Col. Records, I., 518; Mass. Hist. Soc, Collections, 
5th scries, VIII., 82. 

' N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 55. 

* R. I. Col. Records, I., 509. 


and made grants of money to Clarke and Baxter. 
The charter began the unification of the colony. 
By 1680 centralization prevailed, and the general 
assembly gathered to itself much of the power 
formerly exercised by the towns. From the cir- 
cumstances of its early history, the executive in 
Rhode Island since that time has always been 
subordinate to the legislature. 

The granting of the charters to Connecticut and 
Rhode Island made but little difference in the 
government and life of the colonies, but it gave 
them a unity and a legal standing which they had 
hitherto lacked. Each colony clung to its charter 
with remarkable tenacity and venerated it as the 
palladium of its liberties. The people of these 
colonies had good reason to cherish their funda- 
mental instruments, for they were remarkable 
documents. Though clothed in the phraseology of 
trading charters, they were in reality constitutions 
of government unlike an)rthing seen in commercial 
charters before; and they sanctioned principles of 
government that no trading company had ever 
possessed and no Stuart could ever have defended. 
They embodied the levelling doctrines of the rank 
and file of the army in the days of the second 
civil war — doctrines that had been rejected as 
subversive of government, not only by Charles I., 
but also by Cromwell and the Rump Parliament. 
Wittingly or unwittingly, Charles II. gave his ap- 
proval of the doctrines contained in the Agreement 



of the People of 1648 and 1649, and in so doing 
encouraged and gave legal warrant to democratic 
government in America. )( 

While these changes were taking place in New 
England, Charles II. and Clarendon were con- 
sidering the advisability of sending a special com- 
mission to investigate the condition of the New 
England colonies and to settle the many disputes 
that had arisen regarding the boundaries and other 
matters of controversy there. In April, 1664, a 
commission was created, consisting of Colonel Rich- 
ard Nicolls, the governor appointed for the as yet 
uncaptured New Netherland; Colonel Robert Carr, 
a burly and tactless English officer ; Colonel George 
Cartwright, a well-meaning soldier, unversed in the 
arts of diplomacy; and Samuel Maverick, an old 
resident of Boston and persona ingrata to the men 
of Massachusetts Bay. 
Hn^ ^ The three colonels, fully instructed and intrusted 
with a business of unusual delicacy, embarked in 
June on the ships commissioned by the king to 
seize New Netherland. They were sent to effect the 
captiu'e of that colony; to induce New England to 
submit peacefully to the king; to heal factional 
strife ; to settle boundary questions ; to inquire into 
the laws, manners, and customs of the various 
governments; and to find out how to make the 
colonies more profitable to the crown.* 

Had Clarendon selected his men as shrewdly as 

* N. y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 55-61. 


he drew up their instructions, the tmdertaking might 
have been mcxierately successful; but NicoUs was 
the only one of the four with any sense of the 
situation. Carr and Cartwright possessed neither 
tact nor statesmanship, and Maverick was not likely 
to have much influence in New England. So far as 
Connecticut and Rhode Island were concerned, the 
commissioners had no reason to anticipate trouble, 
for the recent grant of the charters smoothed their 
path with the authorities in those colonies. Pl5rm- 
outh also was certain to be friendly, for that col- 
ony was hoping for a charter of its own and could 
not afford to offend the king. The result justified 
these expectations. Each of these colonies wel- 
comed the commissioners with ''great expressions of 
loyalty," and suffered them to hear complaints and 
settle disputes *'to the great satisfaction of all.'** 
In their report the commissioners spoke highly of 
these colonies, declaring that among them they 
had had as great success as the most sanguine 
could have hoped for.* 

With Massachusetts the case was different. Nic- 
oUs and Cartwright presented their credentials in 
Boston in July, 1664; and as their demand was only 
for troops and the repeal of the franchise law, they 
got on well enough, Massachusetts evidently ex- 
pecting soon to be rid of them. But in February, 
1665, Cartwright and Carr returned, and the first 

^ Mass. Col. Records, IV., pt. i., 174-176. 
* .v. y. Docs, Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 96, 97. 



interviews were stormy, Massachusetts vehemently 
den)ring their right to hear appeals or to exercise 
any jurisdiction whatever, on the grotmd that such 
acts conflicted with the colony's right under the 
charter. In May, Nicolls came on from New York, 
and for more than three weeks the matter in ques- 
tion was debated between the commissioners on 
one side and the general court on the other. The 
magistrates argued every point at length, refusing 
to recognize any abuses in their government or the 
right of the commissioners to assume any of their 
prerogatives,* Finally, the commissioners, angry 
and baffled, brought the conferences to an end, and, 
leaving everything unsettled, journeyed northward 
to Piscataway and soon afterwards returned to Eng- 

The colony had saved its rights of government 
at the expense of its reputation in England, and the 
impression gained ground that Massachusetts was on 
the eve of rebellion. In their report the commission- 
ers advised the king to adopt a policy of coercion, 
and Charles II., in his reply to the commissioners, 
took occasion to rebuke the colony sharply for its 
want of respect to those whom he had sent intrusted 
with his commands. But the king went no further, 
for Clarendon, suspecting that the commissioners 
had not used as much tact as they ought, bade the 

* Mass. Col. Records, IV., pt. i., 177-234; iV. V. Docs. Rel, 
to Col. Hist., III., 93-100; Hutchinson, Hist, of Mctss. Bay, I., 


colony send agents to England with authority to 
settle there the questions in dispute.* Though 
for the moment Massachusetts escaped an attack 
upon her prerogatives, the slight which she had 
inflicted upon the king's representatives was not 
easily or soon forgotten. 

The fall of Clarendon in 1667 probably saved the 
colony. The king was appeased by extraordinary- 
protestations of loyalty from the Massachusetts 
general court and. the present of twenty-six ** great 
masts," which the colony sent as evidence of its 
affection.* Taking advantage of this lull in the 
storm, Massachusetts resumed control over the 
county of York, that portion of Maine claimed by 
the heirs of Sir Ferdinando Gorges, which the com- 
missioners, as almost their last act, had removed 
from the jurisdiction of the colony. A special 
committee was appointed by the Lords of Trade 
to investigate this piece of prestunption,* but 
eventually Massachusetts was left in full possession 
of the territory. Never did the colony seem more 
secure than at this time: its authority extended 
from Sagadahoc to Hingham and into the interior 
westward as far as the Connecticut River ; the French 
and Indians were quiet; trade was unchecked by 
any serious attempt to enforce the navigation acts ; 

* Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1661-1668, §§ 1171, 1174. 
' Ibid., § 1797. 

• Mass. Col. Records, IV., pt. i., 371; Cal. of State Pap., CoL, 
X669-1674, §§ 59, 8a, Z84, 439, 51a. 

1 668] 



and a spirit of industry and contentment brooded 
over the colony.* Resistance to the king's commis- 
sioners seemed to have been a wise and successful 

^ Hutchinson, Hist, of Mass, Bay, I., 369. 




THE re-adjustment of affairs in New England was 
only one phase of that revived interest in trade 
and colonization which characterized the period 
of the Restoration in England and attracted the 
attention, not only of the merchants, but also of 
men of high rank and official prominence. Pre- 
eminently important at this time were the com- 
mercial supremacy of the Dutch and the presence 
of a Dutch colony in America lying midway between 
New England and Maryland. On the eastern sea- 
board, the Dutch occupied the most advantageous 
position, and their claims stretched eastward to Cape 
Cod and southward to Cape Henlopen on the farther 
side of Delaware Bay.* In one direction they came 
into conflict with New Haven, Connecticut, and 
Rhode Island, and in the other with the Swedes and 
Lord Baltimore; they controlled the trade of the 
Five Nations; and, from England's point of view, 
they offered a tempting opportunity to planters and 

* Plymouth Col. Records, IX., 146, 147, 210-214; ^« ^- Docs, 
Rel. to Col, Htst., I., 288-292. 




traders to sell tobacco contrary to the navigation 
acts and to defraud the king of his revenues. To 
deprive the Dutch of their power and their oppor- 
tunity in America was, therefore, a necessary part 
of England's policy as shaped by Cromwell and 
carried out by Charles II. 

Had the expedition of Major Sedgwick against 
New Amsterdam in 1652 been carried out, the 
Dutch must siurely have been beaten then and there ; 
for the Dutch colony had taken no firm root in 
America, and lacking both political and social 
unity, was in no condition at that time to resist 
an attacking force from England and her colonies. 
Peter Stuyvesant, who became director of the 
colony in 1647, was an energetic ruler, but he 
alienated the burghers by his domineering methods 
and by his attempts to keep the control of govern- 
ment in the hands of himself and the cotmcil. /His 
inability to carry out his plans made his own 
position weak. At the very beginning of his ad- 
ministration the need of financial support forced him 
to listen to the burghers' demand for a share in their 
government and to establish a board of nine men 
representing the people, who should confer with him 
in all matters concerning the city (1647).* This 
board became a centre of municipal discontent, and 
the quarrels which ensued ended in 1653 in the grant 

* Jameson, "Government of New York City" (Magazine of 
Amer. Hist., VIII., pt. i., 326); text of charter in O'Callaghan, 
Hist, of New Neth,, I., 37-39. 


of a municipal charter for the city, which made New 
Amsterdam independent of the government of the 
rest of the island of Manhattan. 

Yet Stuyvesant's policy rendered any efficient self- 
government for the city impossible, and the burgo- 
master and schepens exercised very little actual 
authority, their functions being chiefly judicial.^ 
Opposed by his own countrymen, Stuyvesant came 
to depend on the English residents within the col- 
ony; but they, forbidden by the States-General of 
Holland to hold office, were never a certain sup- 
port. The fort on the southern point of the city 
fell into decay; the burghers, phlegmatic in tem- 
perament, refused to listen to Stuyvesant's passion- 
ate appeals for aid in defending the town ; and the 
Dutch West India Company seemed wholly tmwill- 
ing to spend any money in behalf of its colony. 
Consequently, the last years of Dutch rule were 
characterized by friction in political and social mat- 
ters, by neglect of military defence, and a gradual 
waning of Dutch colonial prestige. 

Stuyvesant watched with great concern the 
gradual advance of the English. After the grant 
of the charter of 1662 Connecticut, notwithstanding 
the treaty of Hartford of 1650, claimed all the 
territory between Stamford and Westchester, as 
well as the whole of Long Island.' Stuyvesant 

* Records of New Amsterdam, I., 49. 

• Conn,Col, Records, I., 406; N. Y. Docs. Rel, to Col. Hist., II., 


truly said in reply to the demands of Connecticut 
that, even if New Netherland should cede West- 
chester and all Long Island, it would not satisfy 
the aggressors, whose object was to drive the Dutch 
entirely from America.^ For ten years the Dutch 
and the English, though nominally at peace, were 
actually engaged in a persistent commercial and 
colonial war.' Englishmen never forgot the mas- 
sacre of Amboyna in 1623, whereby the Dutch had 
driven them out of the Spice Islands; and com- 
plaints by the score came from English residents of 
Long Island for injuries done to English trade and 
revenue by the Dutch in New Amsterdam.* In- 
fluential men like Sir George Downing kept up 
a fire of criticism and comment hostile to Holland ; 
and the founding of the Royal African Company 
in 1 66 1 gave rise to new conflicts at Cabo-Corso 
castle (Cape Verd) and on the Guinea coast.* 

Impressed with the belief that the Dutch were 
injuring England's commerce, the council for 
plantations took the matter in hand, and in July, 
1663, with Sir John Berkeley as its presiding officer, 
bade the complainants bring in a report proving 
their charges, and appointed a special committee, 
composed of Berkeley, Carteret, and William Coven- 
try, secretary to the duke of York, to report re- 

» Thurloc. State Papers, V., 81. 

•AT. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist, II., 385-393; III., 230-231; 
Plymouth Col. Records, X., 302-304. 

• iV. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III.. 46. 

* Col. of State Pap., Col., x66i-i668, { 618, 1668-1674, { 936. 


garding the feasibility of an attack on the Dutch 
territory in America. The committee made in- 
quiry of residents of Long Island who were in 
London, and in January, 1664, reported that the 
overthrow of the colony could be easily effected. 
The following six months furnish a remarkable 
chapter in the history of English aggression. Eng- 
lish statesmen and merchants were thoroughly 
aroused against the Dutch. The duke of York 
and his personal friends — Clarendon, Carteret, and 
Berkeley — ^were leaders of the movement, the duke 
showing his active interest by frequently conferring 
with the merchants, encouraging the merchant 
companies, and doing all in his power to hinder the 
Dutch trade.* 

Under the guidance of these men the conspiracy 
against the Dutch made rapid progress. Berkeley 
and Carteret submitted their report in January, 
1664; in February James obtained of his brother a 
grant of £4000 to undertake the conquest, and on 
March 12, 1664, received a royal charter of the terri- 
tory, which by the king's special instruction was 
rushed through the seals with extraordinary rapidity 
in less than two weeks, the forms which tisually 
preceded the king's warrant in this case not being 
necessary.' On March 26 the House of Commons 
resolved that an investigation should be made into 
the causes of the decay of trade, and authorized 

' Clark, Life of James Second, I., 399-401. 

» Cal. of State Pap., Col, 1661-1668, §{ 675, 685. 

■*■» — 


the committee of trade to look into the matter.* 
The committee bade the merchant companies state 
their grievances and propose a remedy;* and on 
April I, 1664, the merchants declared that the 
Dutch were the greatest enemies to the trade of 
the kingdom. 

On April 2, James commissioned Richard Nicolls, 
groom of his bedchamber, to be lieutenant-governor 
of the yet unconquered territory in America f and on 
April 2 1 , Parliament accepted the report of the com- 
mittee based on the statements of the merchants, 
and justified the king's assertion that both houses 
were in "good humor" and ready to **pawn their 
estates to maintain a war."* The king opposed 
war with Holland, but believed that the Dutch were 
the aggressors and that he had a legitimate complaint 
against the Dutch East and West India companies, 
particulariy in America, for, he said, New Amster- 
dam "did belong to England heretofore, but the 
Duch by degrees drove our people out of it."* 
On April 23 he sent to the government of New 
England an announcement of his determination to 
conquer New Netherland, and appointed the com- 
mission, consisting of Nicolls, Cartwright, Carr, and 
Maverick, to go to America to investigate the 

* Cal. of State Pap., Dom., 1663-1664, § 531, 
^ Ibid., i 541. 

" Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1661-1668, § 695. 

* Cal. of State Pap., Dotn., 1663 - 1664, § 562; Cartwright, 
Madame, Memoirs of the Princess Henrietta, 158, 160. 

•Cartwright, Madame, 176. 


situation.* In June James, probably at the urgent 
request of his friends, divided the territory granted 
him by the king, and gave the region between the 
Hudson and the Delaware to Carteret and Berkeley. 
A month later, though England and Holland were 
at peace, NicoUs and his fleet of foiu: vessels started 
for America to conquer the territory thus summarily 
disposed of. A more unprincipled series of secret 
actions against a friendly nation, whose only 
offence was greater success in conmierce, can hardly 
be imagined. 

The territory thus assigned included all the area 
" beginning at a certain place called St. Croix, next 
adjoining to New Scotland in America," and ex- 
tending westward to the Kennebec River and north- 
ward to Canada; also, all the territory lying be- 
tween the Connecticut and Delaware rivers, together 
with Long Island, Martha's Vineyard, and Nan- 
tucket. For ten years the islands last named 
had been independent of any outside jurisdiction, 
having been governed by a certain Thomas Mayhew 
and his son, who derived their authority from 
Stirling and Gorges, original patentees of the New 
England cotmcil. Of the entire territory the por- 
tion occupied by the Dutch, extending from Fort 
Orange on the north to Delaware Bay on the south, 
was by far the most important, and its centre and 
key was the city of New Amsterdam. 

As the duke of York and his colleagues must have 

» N. y. Docs. Rel. to Col Hist., II., 237; III., 51-61. 63. 


anticipated from their preliminary study of the 
situation, the city fell an easy prey to the fleet. 
Stuyvesant wished to fight. When he received from 
Nicolls the letter demanding the siurender of the 
city he tore it in pieces and in a storm of wrath 
stamped upon the torn fragments, and declared to 
the members of the cotmcil that he would never 
yield. But the phlegmatic burghers refused to sup- 
port him, and, gathering the pieces of the letter, 
they read the commtmication and answered it with 
a flag of truce. > Au^st 26. 166/1. the English oc^ 
cupied the city.* Cartwright was sent to capture 
Enrt Orancr, and Carr was despatched to the 
Delaware to capture Fort Ams tel, which he did in 
^an tmnecessarily brutal manner. Nicolls, the only 
efficient statesman among the four commissioners, 
made every effort to conciliate the defeated biu^hers 
and to build up the colony, for by the terms of the 
capitulation the Dutch were allowed to keep their 
property and to remain in the colony if they chose, 
to have liberty of conscience and worship, to retain 
their own customs, and to enjoy all the privileges 
of English subjects.* 

Towards Connecticut Nicolls displayed the same 
liberality; instead of attempting to carry out 
literally the terms of the duke of York's patent, 

* Records of New Amsterdam ^ V., 114-n^; Brodhead, Hist, 
of New York, I., 20-37. 

' N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., II., 250-253; Munsell, Annals 
of Albany, IV., 28; Smith, Hist, of New York, I., 28. 

TOL. V." 


which would have cost Connecticut all her terri- 
tory west of the Connecticut River, he compromised 
on a line drawn north -northwest from a jxiint on 
the coast twelve miles east of the Hudson River. 
Though the Connecticut men who accepted this 
arrangement lost Long Island, they managed to 
add a few miles of territory west of the line previ- 
ously agreed to by the Dutch, and, had the north- 
west line ever been allowed, would have carried 
their frontier across the Hudson River. The line 
was subjected to severe scrutiny at a later time, and 
Connecticut was forced eventually to retire within 
the boundary provided for in the treaty of Hart- 

The duke of York, as proprietary of the new 
colony, was intrusted with full and absolute power 
to govern and administer his province according to 
such laws and ordinances as he might choose to 
establish, but on condition that all laws be agreea- 
ble to those of England and appeals allowed to the 
king in council from all judgments of the colonial 
courts. The proprietary could appoint a governor 
and other officers authorized to administer the 
province under such laws and methods of govern- 
ment as seemed to him fit and suitable and not 
contrary to the laws of England, and he could 
regulate trade as he pleased within the territory of 

* Bowen, Boundary Disputes of Connecticut, 69, 70; Smith, 
Hist, of New York, I., 36; N. Y. State Library, Bulletin, History 
No. 2, p. 135; N. Y. State Historian, Report, 1896, pp. 143, 144. 


the grant. That James himself determined the 
leading points of this patent we cannot doubt. 

Under the provisions of the grant, Nicolls gov- 
erned with fairness and wisdom. He promptly 
Anglicized the different portions of his colony, 
calling New Amsterdam New York, Fort Orange 
Albany, New Amstel New Castle, the region west 
of the Hudson River Albania; and erecting Long 
Island, Staten Island, and Westchester into the 
district of Yorkshire. He organized a system of 
judicial districts, or ridings, but it was not until 
1683 that the province was divided into coun- 

He attempted to increase the population of Al- 
bania by offering favorable conditions to settlers ; he 
encouraged the trade of the colony by increasing mer- 
chant shipping ; he made treaties with the Indians ; 
and he uiged the Long Island people to settle their 
boimdary difficulties, and to live peacefully among 
themselves. Even the Dutch testified to the '* gen- 
tleness, wisdom, and intelligence" with which he 
managed the government,* and his fellow -com- 
missioner Maverick wrote to Arlington that Nicolls 
had acquired "great repute and honor," and had 
"kept persons of different judgments and divers 
nations in place when a great part of the world 
was in wars." "As to the Indians," he added, 
"they were never brought into such a peaceful 

* Colonial Laws of New York, I., 121. 

* Records of New Amsterdam, V., 160-162. 


posture and fair correspondence as they now 

In all that related to law and government Nicolls 
was restricted by definite instructions from the 
duke, who was opposed to self-government in any 
form, and not only caused any mention of a rep- 
resentative assembly to be omitted from the royal 
charter, but specially instructed his governor to 
model the government of the city of New York after 
that of a mimicipal corporation in England. Under 
these instructions Nicolls had to establish a govern- 
ment in city and province in which the people as 
a whole had no share. In 1665 he granted a char- 
ter to the city, inaugurating a government of the 
familiar English type, in accordance with which 
mayor, aldermen, and sheriff were appointed by the 
lieutenant-governor, but were given power to make 
by-laws, to name inferior officers, and to sit as a 
final court in all cases involving forty shillings or 
less. Though the charter favored the freemen of 
the city by bestowing upon them a monopoly of 
trade, it made the lieutenant-governor the supreme 
authority imder the duke and denied to the people 
the privilege of self-government.' 

Inasmuch as the royal charter made no provision 
for representative government such as appeared in 
other proprietary charters, Nicolls was unable to 

» A^. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist, III., 173, 174. 
'Jameson, '•Government of New York City" (Magazine of 
Amer. Hist., VIII., pt. ii., 598-611). 


place the draughting of a code of laws in the hands 
of an elected legislative body, and was compelled 
himself to draw up as fairly as possible such laws 
as seemed to him reasonable and necessary. These 
laws, later known as the Duke's Laws, were in- 
tended mainly for the residents of Westchester and 
Long Island, where a majority of the inhabitants 
were Englishmen. In carrying out his task NicoUs 
copied many provisions from the codes of New 
Haven and Massachusetts, introduced many Dutch 
customs, and added some peculiarities of his own. 
The laws made no provision for town-meetings, free- 
men, and schools; and instead of the ** townsmen" 
whom the English had been accustomed to choose to 
manage their prudential affairs, elective oflBcers were 
established-ya constable and eight overseersV— with 
limited powers, somewhat after the fashion of the 
Dutch village communities. Absolute toleration in 
matters of religion was allowed, and land-holding in- 
stead of church membership was made the qualifica- 
tion of voters.' Thus the code, admirably drawn 
in many particulars and liberal in all that concerned 
religion and the suffrage, distinctly curtailed the 
political privileges which the inhabitants of the 
English towns had hitherto enjoyed. Such an in- ^-. 
novation was certain in the end to make trouble^fe^^ 

After draughting his laws, NicoUs, in FebruaryT^^^ 
1665, issued a proclamation bidding the people of the 
towns of Long Island send deputies to Hempstead, 

* McKinley, in Anter. Hist, Review, VI., 704-718. 


promising them "freedom and immunities" equal 
to those possessed by the New England colonies.^ 
When the deputies came together they discovered 
for the first time that their business was simply 
to sanction without addition or amendment a body 
of laws already drawn up. Some demurred, but 
opposition was useless; all eventually gave their 
consent and scattered to their homes without 
further protest. Afterwards, roused by the criti- 
cisms of their townspeople, they issued a "narra- 
tive and remonstrance," in which they demanded a 
reconsideration of those provisions of the code 
which concerned the election of magistrates, the 
levying of taxes, and the control of the militia — 
the provisions most objectionable to the Long- 
Islanders.* Nicolls answered that he could do 
nothing for them and that they would have to go to 
the king if they wanted further privileges ; a reply 
with which the deputies seem to have been content. 
The people did not view the matter in quite the 
same light as the deputies. The towns of western 
as of eastern Long Island understood "immuni- 
ties'* to mean political liberties.* Hence, after the 
Hempstead meeting discontent prevailed widely. 
Many of the people refused to pay taxes; towns 

> V. Y. Docs. ReL to Col. Hist., XIV.. 564. 565; N. Y. State 
Library, Bulletin, History No. 2, 154, 155; Soutkold Records, I., 

357» 358- 

' Thompson, Hist, of Long Island, II., 323-326. 

• N. Y. State Historian, Report, 1897, pp. 241, 242; Soutkold 

Records, I., 358, 359. 


refused to elect oflBcers according to the provisions 
of the Duke's Laws; trouble arose over the officering 
of the militia, and some prominent Long -Islanders 
spoke their minds so freely as to bring upon them 
penalties for seditious utterances.* When Nicolls 
was succeeded by Governor Lovelace, in 1668, the 
towns of western Long Island renewed the attack, 
and sent in a petition craving redress of grievances 
and asking that their ** deputies be joined with the 
governor and council in making the laws of the 
government"; but Lovelace, with less tact than 
Nicolls had displayed, bade them remember that he 
had no authority to grant their request, and that 
it was their business to be obedient and submissive 
to the authority of the duke.' 

The Puritans, however, were not inclined to accept 
this advice, and a further opportimity soon arose 
for them to show their spirit. The fort in New 
York had fallen into decay, and in 1670 Lovelace 
and the court of assizes took into consideration the 
question of how it could best be repaired **to the 
ease and satisfaction of the inhabitants."* Before 
any tax was levied for this purpose Flushing, Hemp- 
stead, and Jamaica — and later Huntington — took 
fright and called town - meetings, which di^ughted 
strongly worded' protests against any attempti to 
impose taxes upon them without their consent.* 

« N. Y. Docs.Rel to Col. Hist., XIV., 576, 578. 579: Waller, 
Hist, of Flushing, 62-66; Brodhead, Hist, of New York, I., 108. 
» N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., XIV., 631, 632. 
*/6fd., 646. * Huntington Records, I., 163, 164. 


Lovelace was so angry at receiving these "scan- 
dalous, illegal, and seditious addresses" that he 
ordered them to be openly and publicly burned 
before the town - house in New York, an action to 
which the council and the justices of the peace gave 
their approval.* Nevertheless, the addresses were 
not without their effect; for, two years later, when 
the same question came up again, Lovelace sent to 
the towns a very temperate address asking for 
voluntary contributions.* The western towns, ap- 
peased, responded promptly and liberally, but the 
eastern towns remained obdurate. 

Both Southampton and Southold refused to renew 
their patents in 1669;* and when Lovelace, in 
October, 1670, declared that unless they did so their 
lands would be forfeited, they joined with East- 
hampton and sent a petition to the king begging that 
they might be annexed to Connecticut. Hearing 
nothing from this petition, the three towns, in June, 
1672, drew up a statement agreeing to contribute 
to the repairing of the fort " if they might have the 
privileges that other of his majesty's subjects in 
these parts have and do enjoy.*'* Evidently the 
towns sent some contribution to New York with 
their statement, for when their letter was read 
Lovelace promised to answer it and '* to take notice 
of the meanness of their contribution and the 

> iV. Y. Docs Rel. to Col. Hist., XIV., 646. 647. » Ibid., 667. 

• N. Y. State Historian, Report, 1896, p. 356; N. Y. Docs. 
Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 197, 198. 

* Easthampton Records , I., 346. 


seeming condition of it/* ^ Thus ended the first 
attempt of the people of New York to obtain 
redress of grievances before granting supplies. 

In 1673 war again broke out between England 
and Holland, and in August of that year a Dutch 
fleet recaptured New York and restored, though 
only temporarily, the authority of the Dutch. This 
event gave to the three Long Island towns a new 
opportimity to obtain the desired liberties. They 
refused to take the oath of fidelity to the Dutch 
government, and an attempt of the governor, Colve, 
to subdue them by force failed because of the 
intervention of Connecticut. The towns remained 
independent of all higher jurisdiction until in May, 
1674, the court at Hartford appointed a commission 
with "magistratical power*' to hold a county court 
for them on Long Island.* In Jtme, anticipating a 
return to the jurisdiction of the duke of York, they 
drew up a petition to the king, begging to be allowed 
to remain as they were,* but it is doubtful if the 
petition was ever sent, for in December, 1674, a 
month after the English had again taken possession 
of New York, they were compelled, very much 
against their will, to submit to the authority of the 
duke of York's government.* Thus Southampton, 
Easthampton, and Southold failed in their attempt 
to secure the greater political privileges that the 
colony of Connecticut enjoyed. 

» N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., XIV., 668. 

* Conn. Col. Records, II. , 2 29. • Easthampton Records, I., 370. 

*iV. y. Docs. Rel to Col, Hist., XIV., 681-685. 




THE capture and occupation of the province by 
the Dutch proved only an interlude in the 
history of the colony. Colve, the Dutch governor, 
was an able man, and had he been supported by the 
Dutch authorities at home, might have held New 
Orange (as he called New York) against the English. 
But the fate of the province was settled in Europe 
and not in America. News of the conquest and of 
the hopeful condition of the city was late in reaching 
The Hague.^ On February 19, 1674, by the treaty 
of Westminster, the province was returned to Charles 
II., and in October was formally surrendered to 
Major Edmimd Andros, who had been appointed 
governor by the duke of York. Andros, the son of 
a Guernsey gentleman belonging to the household of 
Charles I., was at this time a young man thirty-seven 
years of age. Having spent his life in the environ- 
ment of camp and court in the service of the king, 
he brought to New York the habits of a soldier 
and the sympathies of a Stuart devotee. He was 

" N. y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., II., 526-530. 


•■~~T ' 

1674I NEW YORK 91 

a kindly iDan in his personal and domestic rela- 
tions, but narrow in his views of government and 
limited in his abilities as an executive. Like his 
superior, the duke of York, he had no sense of 
humor, no appreciation of the condition of the 
English in America, and no tolerance for political 
views that differed from his own. 

Like his predecessors, NicoUs and Lovelace, 
Andros was the governor of a wide - stretching, 
irregularly shaped province, without unity, either 
territorial or ethnic. It was peopled by English, 
Dutch, and Swedes, and, though adapted to trade, 
was not suited for compact and uniform adminis- 
tration or for rapid growth in population and in 
well -rooted political institutions. Though ten years 
of association had done something to harmonize the 
customs and practices of the varied regions included 
in New York, uniformity was impossible. The 
colony, deprived of the broad lands of Connecticut 
and the Jerseys, and cut off from rapid expansion 
northward by the Indians, was hindered in its 
growth, and remained for half a century backward 
in its development. 

Andros did what he could to unite the scattered 
portions of his colony. He reduced the towns of 
eastern Long Island in December, 1674, and in June 
following carried out the express instructions of the 
duke by attempting to seize that portion of Con- 
necticut named in the duke's charter as within his 
jurisdiction. Connecticut met charter with charter. 


and when Andros persisted in his claim and with 
three vessels went to Saybrcx)k ostensibly to protect 
the colony, he fotind a Connecticut force there. 
Though he felt that Connecticut ought to be annexed 
to New York, he did no more than state the duke's 
claim and sail away to Southold and the eastern 
islands.* He made a similar attempt to annex the 
Jerseys, but with no better success. 

Though he failed in these two ventures, which 
have laid him open, very unjustly, to the charge 
of playing the tyrant, he succeeded remarkably well 
in his efforts to guard his province against attacks 
of the Indians during King Philip's War. Not only 
did he prevent inroads upon New York, but he sent 
powder to Rhode Island and a sloop to Maine, and 
would have aided Massachusetts and Connecticut 
had not these colonies, suspicious of his intentions, 
refused his proffered assistance.* 

Andros was the appointee of an able but narrow- 
minded prince, who had no sympathy for popular 
government, but who for the sake of his revenues 
was anxious to promote the prosperity of his colony, 
James instructed his governor to use his power "for 
the protection and benefit of the province, for the 
encouragement of planters and plantations and the 
improvement of trade and commerce, and for the 
preservation of religion, justice, and equity among 


* Documentary Hist, of New York, I., 153, 187; Conn. Col. 
Records, II., 569-574. 

» A^. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 254. 


1674] NEW YORK 93 

them," ^ instructions which Andros fully carried out. 
He repaired and beautified houses and streets, 
improved the social, moral, and religious condition 
of the people, and gave time and attention to the 
problems of excise, revenue, currency, and, above 
all, of trade. The more his career is studied the 
more the conviction grows that, as compared with 
many other colonial governors, he was upright, 
sympathetic, and faithful. He certainly was not 
a great man, or, like Nicolls, he would have won 
the respect of the people whom he governed; but 
he never lost the confidence of his superiors, and else- 
where and at other times would doubtless have 
earned an honorable reputation as a soldier and 

Nor was Andros an enemy of representative as- 
semblies, but he probably viewed the matter, as did 
many other English statesmen of his time, from 
the practical rather than from the theoretical stand- 
point. At the outset of his administration the peo- 
ple of Jamaica — and probably of other towns — 
asked that deputies from the towns should be 
stunmoned at least once a year to sit with the 
governor and coimcil in New York.* In his letters 
to the duke, Andros urged the desirability of granting 
these requests, but James would hear nothing of it ; 
he had his own ideas of what good government 
ought to be, and was satisfied with the New York 

» N. Y, Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III.. 216. 

* N. Y. State Historian, Report, 1897, pp. 240-242. 


S3rstem as it was. A representative assembly, he 
answered, was inconsistent with the form of govern- 
ment established for New York, and to sunmion one 
would be a dangerous matter, " nothing being more 
known than the aptness of such bodies to asstmie 
to themselves many privileges which prove destruc- 
tive to or very oft disturb the peace of the govern- 
ment wherein they are allowed." * New York, there- 
fore, remained for six years longer the only colony 
in which the people had no share in their gov- 

In 1 681 James was compelled to reconsider his 
decision because of the danger of loss of revenue. 
The merchants of New York took advantage of his 
neglect to renew the customs duties, which had 
been in force since 1674, and refused to pay them. 
Fenwick in West New Jersey refused in like manner 
to pay the five per cent, duty which Andros levied 
on all goods brought up the Delaware; and Philip 
Carteret denied his right to levy duties in the 
harbors of East New Jersey for the benefit of the 
proprietary. Reports began to come in that the 
receipts of the province were falling off, and im- 
mediately James ordered Andros to return to Eng- 
land to answer these reports. Under the weak rule of 
the deputy, BrockhoUs, the province fell into further 
disorder ; trade continued to decline and the duke's 
revenues to decrease, and every indication seemed to 
show that as a producer of profit to the propri- 

" N, Y. Docs, Rel. to Col Hist,, III., 230. 235. 

i682] NEW YORK 95 

etary the autocratic system of government had 

The revolt of the merchants was accompanied 
with wide -spread disaffection among the people. 
Penn's grant of self-government And free-trade to 
the colonists of Pennsylvania in 1682 increased the 
discontent in New York and stimulated emigration. 
The council, aldermen, and justices petitioned for a 
representative assembly,* and meetings were called 
in the towns of Long Island to agitate for a redress 
of public grievances. In England, Andros, Nicolls, 
and Dyer tirged the duke to allow an assembly as the 
only means whereby money could be raised to pay 
the expenses of government; and, confronted with 
bankruptcy, the duke yielded. He wrote to Brock- 
holls bidding him retain the government for the 
present, and saying that he would grant an assembly 
on the condition that it would raise a revenue for 
the province.* 

This promise the duke fulfilled. In 1682, when 
he appointed Thomas Dongan governor of New 
York, he authorized him to call at once on his 
arrival a general representative assembly of the 
freeholders, with free liberty of debate, to consult 
with the governor and council regarding the levying 
of taxes and the making of laws.* Dongan, an 
Irish Roman Catholic and a man of warm heart and 

• Brodhead, Hist, of New York, II., 354, 355. 

• Text of the petition, ibid., 658. 

• N: Y, Docs.Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 317, 318. * /Wd.,331. 


lai^ powers, caused the writs to be issued* and on 
October 1 7, 1683, there met in New York for the first 
time in the history of the province a general popular 
assembly. The representatives, seventeen in ntun- 
ber, passed several laws, but all other measures were 
insignificant when compared with the Charter of 
Franchises and Liberties,* in which they embodied 
all the political claims and privileges for which the 
people had been agitating for eighteen years. The 
charter contained provisions from Magna Carta, the 
Confirmation of the Charters, and the Petition of 
Right, set forth all the privil^es that Parliament 
had won in the days of Elizabeth, and in grandly 
calling the '* people" the ** electoral body," used 
a word unknown in colonial charters, where "free- 
men" was the invariable term. Well might James, 
when he received this statute for his approval, 
have repeated his remark that ** representative as- 
semblies were apt to assume to themselves privi- 
leges." Yet he signed and sealed the charter, and 
October 4, 1684, ordered that it be despatched to 
New York.* 

For some reason the charter was not sent over 
as ordered. Probably the document was held back 
that it might be ** perfected," but in the interim 
Charles II. died, February 6, 1685, and the duke 
of York became king of England. The whole 

* Colonial Laws of New York, I., 111-116. 
» Col. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685, 8 1885; Historical Maga- 
tine, ist series, VI., 333. 

i68sl NEW YORK 97 

situation was altered: the proprietary had become 
the king, and New York thereby a royal province 
under the direct charge of the Lords of Trade, who 
from this time forward were responsible for its 
management. King James rejected the charter 
which he had signed as proprietary, and at once 
took up a plan which the Lords of Trade had been 
formulating since 1675 for bringing all the pro- 
prietary and charter colonies into a closer depen- 
dence on the crown. Nicolls, Andros, and Dongan 
had shown that New York could never prosper 
tuiless the adjoining colonies were annexed to it.^ 
Troubles with Connecticut, Long Island, and the 
Jerseys were all largely trade troubles. Tales of 
evasion of duties, of smuggling, and of diversion of 
Indian traffic kept coming to the ears of the home 
authorities, and there seemed to be no other remedy 
than consolidation. 

James and his cotmcillors had no appreciation 
of the political and racial differences among the 
colonies, or of the deep-rooted instinct for self- 
government and love of independence which the 
colonists possessed. There is no evidence to show 
that he ever took these characteristics into con- 
sideration; and he probably could not have tm- 
derstood them, for James was always blind to 
popular moods and convictions. He was now king 
and could enforce his plan. On March 4, 1685, 
when the matter was brought before the committee 

* N, Y. Docs. Rel, to Col. Hist., III., 361-364, 392, 394. 
TOt. T.— 7 


of his council sitting in his presence, he declared that 
he wotild not confirm the charter, but desired to 
bring New York under the constitution which was 
to be draughted for the newly organized dominion of 
New England.* In 1686, when a new conmiission 
was sent to Dongan, all reference to a representative 
assembly was omitted, and all powers of legislation 
and taxation were once more vested in the governor 
and council. 

Dongan proved an admirable governor, better 
even than NicoUs and Andros. He not only showed 
his sympathy with the representative body that sat 
during his administration, but he granted a new 
charter to the city of New York (1683) and another 
to Albany, conferring many additional privileges 
of self-government.* The charter to* New York, 
according to which mayor, recorder, and sheriff 
were appointed by the governor, and aldermen were 
chosen by the people, fixed the municipal officers 
of New York for one himdred and thirty-five years. 
Dongan opposed an attempt of Penn to purchase 
the Susquehanna territory from the Indians. He 
wished to draw the boimdary - line between New 
York and Pennsylvania at 41® 40^, so that Penn 
might not secure jurisdiction over the Five Nations 
and control of the whole peltry trade west of Al- 
bany ;' likewise, when Connecticut tried to establish 
her boimdary, according to the arrangement with 

» N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 357. » Ibid., 347, 

• Col. of State Pap,, Col., 1685-1688, 327, 328. 

1 686] NEW YORK 99 

NicoUs, at a point twelve miles from the Hudson, 
Dongan compelled her to withdraw to the twenty- 
mile mark of the treaty of Hartford, tmder pen- 
alty of a revival of the duke's claim to all the lands 
west of the Connecticut River.* He refused to 
lessen New York's commerce by allowing Perth 
Amboy to become a port of entry, and de- 
manded that all vessels bound for East New Jer- 
sey should touch at New York. On every side 
he upheld the interests of the duke and protect- 
ed the trade and enhanced the prosperity of the 
province. For the year 1683 the duke's prof- 
its rose to £2000, and before 1689 had become 

Dongan's greatest service, not only to New York 
but to all the colonies, lay in his dealings with the 
Indians. The time was critical, for the French 
were aiming to extend their conquests southward 
and to control the Hudson as they were already 
controlling the St. Lawrence and the Mississippi, 
and thus to obtain a third outlet to the ocean, which 
would divide the English colonies into two parts as 
completely as in the time of the Dutch province. 
But Dongan took up the policy which Andros had 
successfully applied, and made a famous treaty 
with the Iroquois, July 30, 1684, fastening the duke 
of York's arms to the Indian wigwams as a sign 
of their subjection to the king of England. Hence- 
forth the Iroquois looked on their lands as the 

* Conn. Col. Records, III.,* 326-333. 


duke's territory and protected the valley of the 
Hudson from all invasions of the French.* 

Thus, through the influence and activity of three 
able colonial governors, a territory in the beginning 
unjustly acquired became a stable and profitable 
province, forming a powerful link in the chain of 
English colonies from Massachusetts Bay to South 
Carolina. Controlled by a king who was blind to 
the significance of popular government. New York 
began its career as a colony governed wholly from 
above ; for the people, though well cared for, were de- 
nied the right of representation. Admirably sittiated 
for purposes of trade, with a harbor unequalled on 
the eastern seaboard, the colony was hampered in 
its economic growth by heavy duties, a narrow 
policy of trade monopoly, and a limited area of 
supply. Peace with the Indians and favorable 
treaty relations were necessary, not only to guard 
against the French, but also to open up the interior 
to the north and northwest for agriculture and trade, 
and so to prepare the colony for its great future. 
Another quarter of a century was destined to show 
great changes for the better in the history of the 
colony of New York. 

* N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 347, 364, 394-39^1 428-490; 
Golden, Hist, of the Five Nations (1737). 



THE prosperity of the colony of New York was 
impaired at the very outset by a serious loss 
of territory lying west of the Hudson River. June 
24, 1664, three months after the issue of the royal 
patent, and before the Dutch had actually sur- 
rendered the territory to the English crown, the 
duke of York, by a peculiar form of English con- 
veyancing known as ** lease and release," granted to 
Berkeley and Carteret all the land between the 
Hudson and the Delaware from about the fortieth 
parallel of latitude on the north to Cape May on 
the south.* The region received in the deed the 
name of Nova Caesaria, or New Jersey, a title 
serving to show that the new land was a sort of 
compensation for Carteret's former office as governor 
of the island of Jersey. The land was broad and 
fertile, stretching from the motmtainous districts of 
the north to the low sandy and marshy flats of the 
south. In a letter to the duke of York, NicoUs de- 
clared that it was the best part of the entire grant ; 

* N, J, Archives, I., 8-14. 


and both he and Dongan frequently asserted that 
the dtike made a great mistake in giving away so 
promising a region and in creating another small 
government between New England and Maryland.* 
Protests were all too late, for the new proprietaries 
forthwith took steps to organize their grant. After 
1674 the question arose whether the "lease and 
release" by implication conveyed to them the 
right to rule as well as to own the land;' but 
there is no doubt that the proprietaries believed 
that they had been vested with powers as full as 
those granted to them and their associates the year 
before as proprietaries of Carolina. 

This grant of New Jersey was made by the duke 
of York to two of his favorites, Sir George Carteret 
and Sir John Berkeley, who, during the years after 
1649, stood nearer to the exiled Stuart princes than 
any other English refugees except Clarendon. Car- 
teret as governor of the island of Jersey provided a 
home for them in 1649, and in 1653 loyally de- 
fended the island against the parliamentarians. 
Berkeley became the governor of the household 
of the duke and the manager of his affairs after 
1652, and sought by such means as he could employ 
to increase the revenues of the prince, who, like 
all the royal exiles, was in great need of money. 

After 1660 these men secured their reward: each 

^Clarendon Papers, 115; N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 

* Whitehead, Civil and Judicial Hist, of N. J., 30-32. 



became a member of the Privy Council and of the 
councils of trade and plantations; each became a 
patentee of the lands monopolized by the Royal 
African Company, and one of the lords proprietors 
of Carolina and the Bahamas. Carteret became 
vice-chamberlain and treastu^r of the navy, was 
appointed one of the lords of the admiralty tmder 
the duke of York as lord high admiral, and actively 
promoted all matters connected with trade and 
navigation from 1660 to his death in 1679. As early 
as 1650 he planned a colonizing expedition to 
Virginia, where he had received the grant of an 
island, but owing to the failure of the royalist cause 
he gave up the project. Berkeley was equally 
favored. He became Baron Berkeley of Stratton, a 
member of the council, one of the lords of the ad- 
miralty, a member of the committee for foreign 
plantations in 1660, and a member of the cotmcil 
committee appointed in 167 1. He was one of the 
patentees who received from Charles, September 
18, 1649, "in the first year of his reign," a grant 
of a portion of Virginia. Thus both Carteret 
and Berkeley stood not only in an intimate re- 
lation to the king and the duke of York, ** de- 
serving much by their great services and sufferings," 
but, by virtue of the offices which they held, were in 
very close connection with the colonies and all that 
concerned them. 

It is not clear who influenced Carteret and 
Berkeley to ask for the territory in America. Claren- 


don kept himself informed regarding the situation 
in New England and New Netherlands and Berkeley 
desired to recoup himself for a purchase for ;^35oo 
of a part interest in certain claims to lands in New 
England by the earl of Sterling, under a grant of 
1625 by the Council of New England.' 

Carteret and Berkeley both served on the com- 
mittee to investigate the conditions in New Nether- 
land; and as late as January, 1664, they were dis- 
coursing "with several persons well acquainted with 
the affairs of New England, some having lately in- 
habited on Long Island, where they have yet an in- 
terest." • Both were deeply implicated in the plot 
for the seizure of New Netherland, and received a 
part of the conquered territory as their share of 
the spoils. 

For the government of the new colony a body of 
** Concessions" was drawn up (by whom we do not 
know), and issued by the proprietaries in January 
and February, 1665, to the colonies of New Jersey 
and Carolina, defining the form of the government, 
outlining the conditions under which lands were to 
be allotted, and guaranteeing liberty of religion, of 
property, and of elections. This document became 
the foimdation and model of government during 
the proprietary period and later. The people climg 

^Clarendon Papers (N. Y. Hist. Soc., ColUciions, 1869), 


' "Blathwayt's Report on the Case of the Earl of Sterling," 
MS. in Public Record Office, Treasury, etc., XXIII., 24. 

« CaL of State Pap., Col., 1661-1668, i 647. 


to it, they qtiarrelled with their governor because 
they thotight he disregarded its provisions, and they 
made it the basis of their demands in all the 
exigencies of their colonial history. Its liberal pro- 
visions were utilized by all those who tried to 
attract settlers to the colony. Scot said that, as 
the result of this guarantee of religion and property, 
the province was * * considerably peopled and many 
resorted there from the neighboring colonies"; and 
again, comparing New Jersey and Carolina in 1685, 
he said that any man in Carolina who had money 
could have honor and trust though he were the 
"arrantest Blockhead in nature,*' while in New 
Jersey office was based on merit ;* and Budd wrote 
that the government was settled by concessions 
and ftmdamental laws **by which every man's 
liberty and property, both as men and Christians, 
are preserved, so that none shall be hurt in his 
person, estate, or liberty for his religious persuasions 
or practice in worship towards God."' 

The region for which a government was thus 
provided was already partly settled. The Dutch 
had planted trading-posts on the left bank of the 
Hudson at a very early date, and named them 
Bergen, after Bergen-op-Zoom, in Holland, Hobuc, 
Wiehawken, and the like. In the south, on the east \^ 

bank of the Delaware, and also at New Castle (New 
Amstel) on the west, were many Finns, Swedes, and 

* Whitehead, East Jersey, App., 397, 398, 446. 

• Budd, Good Order Established (1685). 


Dutch, relicts of the Swedish and Dutch settlements 
there, who willingly accepted the English rule and 
were left in undisturbed possession of their lands.^ 
Governor Nicolls began his broad-minded and 
liberal rule in New York by making strenuous efforts 
to people the colony. At the time of his coming 
he knew nothing of the grant to Berkeley and 
Carteret, and in the stunmer of 1664 he issued a 
proclamation making liberal offers to settlers.' As 
a result a number of families came from Jamaica, 
Long Island — which by descent was a Connecticut 
and New Haven colony — ^purchased land from the 
Indians, and settled within a wide tract covering 
the later townships of Elizabeth, Woodbridge, and 
Piscataway.* Here, during 1665, appear to have 
gathered somewhere about two hundred people.* 
In April of the same year Nicolls issued the ** Mon- 
mouth" patent to certain people from Gravesend, 
who had previously bought the land of the Indians ; 
and thus gave legal warrant, and such measure of 
self-government as he was able, to the settlers. of the 
new towns of Middletown and Shrewsbury. He 
likewise granted **free liberty of conscience without 
any molestation or disturbance whatsoever in the 
way of worship.* These grants were partly respon- 
sible for the trouble that arose in later years be- 

» N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 71. 

* Text in Whitehead, Civil and Judicial Hist, of N. J., 54, 55. 

• N. J. Archives, I., 14-19. 

* Whitehead, Civil and Judicial Hist, of N. J., 102, 103. 

• N. J. Archives, I., 43-46. 



tween the governor and the towns of northern New 

When Philip Carteret (probably a younger brother 
of Sir George)* arrived in August, 1665, with a 
commission from the new proprietaries as governor 
of the colony, he f oimd a goodly number of people 
already settled in his province. He was a yotmg 
man, only twenty-six years of age, of an arbitrary 
and dictatorial temperament. With him came about 
thirty people in all, of whom two only. Captain 
Bollen and Robert Vanquillon, were gentlemen. 


The remainder were servants, French inhabitants of 
the island of Jersey, who in appearance and manners 
were in strange contrast to the strict Puritans among 
whom they settled. The governor took up his 
residence in the town, which in honor of the wife of 
the proprietary he called Elizabeth ; but he and his 
little band of French immigrants found a rather 
scant welcome from the New-Englanders, who looked 
upon him with distrust as a cavalier from the court 
of Charles II. and a relative of the gay courtier Sir 
George Carteret. 

The influx of New England settlers did not cease 
with the settlement of Elizabeth. The New Haven 
colony was a prolific mother of towns.' In June, 
1666, families from New Haven and Milford set sail 
for the Passaic ; three months later more families left 

^ Edmundson (Baronagium Genealogicum, III., 209) men- 
tions such a younger brother. 

* New Haven Col. Records, II., $$2; N. J. ArchtTfes, I., 51-54. 


Branford and Guilford for the same place.* Each 
group drew up its ** fundamental articles," its 
plantation covenant redolent of the narrow spirit of 
the old Fimdamental Articles of New Haven. That 
signed by the family heads of Branford and Guilford, 
on October 30, 1666, declared that no one was to 
be a freeman or burgess, no one was to be a magis- 
trate or to hold office, and no one was to take part 
in elections, except such as were members of the 
Congregational church; and that the purity of the 
religion of this polity was to be maintained with 
diligence and care.' These agreements stand in 
striking contrast with the liberal provisions of the 
Concessions. The New-Englanders established their 
plantation on the Passaic, and there, in June, 1667, 
founded the town of Newark, ** alias Milford," a 
typical New England settlement with its town- 
meeting, its divided lands, and its theocratic polity 
like that of Davenport and the New Haven colony.' 
From this time colonists continued to pour in 
both from England and from New England. Emi- 
grants from Newburjrport, Massachusetts, led prob- 
ably by Daniel Pierce, settled in Woodbridge. To 
these settlers Philip Carteret granted a very liberal 


charter, conferring ** perfect self-government, perfect 
tolerance," trial by jury, and the like, a charter 

* Levermore, Republic of New Haven, 1x4-120; Records of 
Newark (N. J. Hist. Soc., Collections, VI.) 1 i, 2. 

• Records of Newark, 2. 

■ Ibid., 3-9; Whitehead, East Jersey, App., 405. 



which was afterwards confirmed by Berkeley and 
Carteret.* Thus New Jersey became a little 
mcxiel of New England, animated by the spirit of 
the Puritan commonwealth, the intolerance of the 
"saints," and the sturdy independence of the town- 
meeting ; and it is not strange that the proprietaries' 
governor, Carteret, a representative of the Restora- 
tion, should have had but little svmpathy with the 
views of those over whom he ruled. 

At first no regular government was established 
for the province, although in 1667 the patentees and 
delegates of Middletown, Shrewsbury, and Portland 
Point set up a little assembly, which passed laws and 
appointed officers for the towns, but in a limited 
jurisdiction. In April, 1668, Carteret issued a call 
for a general assembly of the whole province to 
meet at Elizabethtown in May.^ The meeting 
contained no representatives from Middletown and 
Shrewsbury, and did not sit long, but it passed a 
"Levitical Code" so ''blue" as to make it clear 
that the New Haven spirit and faith in the Mosaic 
law governed the Newark delegates and ruled the 

To the adjourned meeting in October Middle- 
town and Shrewsbury sent delegates, who were 
not allowed to sit. Trouble was brewing. Carteret 

^ Text of this charter in Whitehead, Civil and Judicial Hisi. 

of N. y., 108, 109. 

* N. y. Archives, I., 56, 57; Whitehead, East Jersey, 188. 

• Learning and Spicer, Grants of New Jersey, 77-84. 


was inclined to be aggressive, and the colonists were 
suspicious and unconciliatory. The governor claim- 
ed the right to preside at town-meetings and to 
establish his French emigrants in the towns on an 
equality with the New - Englanders. The latter, 
deeming him an ungodly autocrat appointed in Eng- 
land, resented his interference, and guarded jealously 
what they considered their rights. No agreement 
could be reached by men of such conflicting opinions. 
The assembly broke up in disorder (November 7) 
and did not come together again for seven years. 

During the years from 1668 to 1670 the governor 
with his council rtded without disturbance, tmtil 
the time came when, according to the terms of 
the Concessions, the quit -rents fell due. These 
the colonists flatly refused to pay, claiming that 
they had the lands from the Indians and by grant 
from NicoUs, and that they owed nothing to the 
proprietaries. The Newark town-meeting expressed 
the opinion of the time when it said : ** They do hold 
and possess their lands and rights in said town, both 
by civil and divine right, as by their legal purchase 
and articles may and doth show." In this refusal 
there was some justification for those individuals 
who had not taken oaths of allegiance, but none 
for those who had; yet nearly all joined in the 
revolt, a fact that disclosed a discontent deeper 
than that due to the quit -rent of a halfpenny 
an acre. Outbreaks took place, riots ensued, and 
for two years the colony was in a state of confusion. 


Finally, the discontent tcx)k the form of rebellion, 
and all the towns except Middletown and Shrews- 
bury set up a separate government and sent dele- 
gates to an assembly of their own in March and May, 
1672. Inasmuch as Philip Carteret would have 
nothing to do with this xmauthorized body, they 
fastened on a certain James Carteret, supposed to 
be an illegitimate son of the proprietary, and made 
him governor.* But the tenure of this personage 
was brief. The proprietaries sustained Philip Car- 
teret,' modified somewhat the former Concessions, 
and repudiated the grants which NicoUs had made; 
and King Charles II. upheld to the full the author- 
ity of the proprietaries.' The populace and their 
representatives withdrew from the struggle, accept- 
ing the terms offered them. 

Trouble with the Indians tmdoubtedly had some- 
thing to do with this peaceful settlement, but the 
seiztire of New York by the Dutch in 1673 had a 
more potent influence. In that year New Jersey, 
along with New York and Long Island, passed for 
the second time under the rule of the States-Gen- 
eral of Holland, with Colve as governor; but ex- 
cept for the obligation to swear a new allegiance,* 
this event brought little change into the colony. 

> N. J. Archives, /., 89-91, 95. 
^Ibid., 91-97. 

»N. Y. State Historian, Report, 1896, p. 364; Harleian MSS, 
m British Musetim, 7001, f. 299. 

*N. J. ArchiveSf I., 121-152, espec. 123, 128, 133, 134. 




WHEN, in 1674, by the treaty of Westminster, 
the Jerseys were restored to the English, it 
became necessary to issue a new grant to the 
duke of York, a new lease to the proprietaries, 
and new directions and instructions to the colonists, 
owing to the fact that **the property of this tract 
of land was by some persons of that time sup- 
posed to be altered by its having been taken and 
possessed by a foreign power.*'* Therefore, in the 
summer of 1674, when Philip Carteret returned 
with a new commission as governor and new di- 
rections for the government of the province,' he 
was received very graciously by both people and 

Until 1674 New Jersey remained an tmdivided 
province. To be sure, the term West New Jersey 
was used for the settlements on the Delaware ; * but 

* Short Account of the First Settlement (1735), 16; another view 
in A^. y. Archives, I., 290. 

* N. J, Archives, I., 167-175. 

* Whitehead, Civil and Judicial Hist, of N.J. ^ 132, 133. 
*iV. y. Archives, I., 118. 

▼OL. v.— 8 1 13 


the colonists there obtained the titles to many 
of their lands from Philip Carteret,* and were rep- 
resented in the assembly which met in Elizabeth- 
town in October, 1668. Still, they took but little 
part in the events thus far recotmted, and, though 
numbering a thousand people, were not called upon 
to pay quit-rents and did not share in the uprising 
against Carteret. In 1674 a change came about 
when Berkeley, wearying of his proprietary relation 
to New Jersey, sold his share of the province for 
j^iooo to Edward Byllynge, a member of the So- 
ciety of Friends, a brewer of London, a friend of 
Berkeley's, and a former officer in Cromwell's army. 
Byllynge placed the management of the business in 
the hands of a Quaker friend. Major John Fenwick, 
who, in consideration of a portion of the property, 
offered to settle the colony and look after the lands 
and the revenues.' 

The entrance of the Quakers upon the scene was 
no sudden nor tmpremedita^d event. For some 
time members of the society had been looking for 
a home in America where they might be free from 
persecution, and many of them went to New Eng- 
land, Long Island, New Jersey, and Carolina. 
Eighteen were reported at Shrewsbtuy in 1673.* 
In that year George Fox, the founder of the society, 

» Pa. Magazine, XVII., 84, 85. 

* Bankers and Sluyter, Journal, 241, 242; N. J, Archives, I., 
185, n., 209; Pa, Magazine, V., 312. 

• N. J. Archives, I., 133, 134, 184; N, Y. Docs, Rel. to Col. 
Hist., II., 607, 619. 


returned from a tour in America, and, tmderstanding 
the circumstances and opportunities there, he may 
have been influential in persuading Byllynge to 
purchase Berkeley's rights. Whether William Penn, 
son of Admiral Penn, and one of the most important 
members in England, had any share in the tmder- 
taking at this time cannot be determined. He met 
Fox on his return, and during the year that followed 
must have discussed with him the situation in 
America. The desire for an independent colony 
where they might establish a government embody- 
ing their own ideas had long been in the minds 
of the Quakers, and there is reason to believe 
that the purchase of Berkeley's share by Byl- 
lynge was made in the interest of the whole so- 

At first the experiment did not succeed. Byllynge 
and Fenwick could not agree as to the division of 
the property; and Penn, who lived near Fenwick 
in England was called in as arbiter. **The present 
difference between thee and E. B. fills the hearts 
of Friends with grief," he wrote to Fenwick, who 
had evidently refused to accept Penn's first award 
of one-tenth as his share. **I took care to hide 
the pretences on both hands as to the original of 
the thing, because it reflects on you both and which 
is worse on the truth." Fenwick took the case 
into chancery, with what results we do not know, 
but he finally accepted the allotment of one-tenth 
and b^an to make preparations for crossing to 


America.* No sooner was this diffictilty met than 
another arose. Byllynge became involved in busi- 
ness, and to satisfy his creditors, was compelled to 
convey his rights (February 14, 1675) to Penn and 
two distingtiished fellow - Quakers, Gawen Lawrie 
and Nicholas Lucas.' Fenwick, too, leased his one- 
tenth to Eldridge and Warner, as sectuity for money 

The title to West New Jersey, already sufSciently 
involved by these transactions, was further com- 
plicated by the attitude of the duke of York, who 
appears at this point to have sought to take back 
his grant and to avoid a reconveyance. In a letter 
from Charles II., of Jime, 1674, Carteret was men- 
tioned as if sole proprietary and all others were 
ignored.* In the new "lease and release" which 
the duke finally executed, the province was for the 
first time divided by a straight line from Bam^at 
Creek to Rankokus Kill, near Burlington on the 
Delaware,* but no mention is anjnvhere made of 
Berkeley's rights or of those to whom these rights 
had been sold. Whitehead says that he ** hesitated, 
dallied, played fast and loose, equivocated, and held 
back," and even though he signed the lease to 
Carteret in 1674, he did not recognize Berkeley's 

* Letters in Bowden, Hist, of Friends, I., 391, 39a; HarUian 
AfSS., in British Museum, 7001, ff. 300, 301. 

' Johnson, Hist, of Salem, 56-63; Pa. Magasine, V., 327-329. 

* List of these grants in Penn's letter, N. y. Archives, I.» 

23a» 233- 

* N. 7. Archives, I., 153, 154. * Ibid,, 161. 

i68ol THE JERSEYS 117 

sale till August 6, 1680.* This equivocation had 
the disastrous effect of clouding the title to West 
New Jersey and hindering colonization there. 

There is no reason to believe that Berkeley and/ 
Carteret deliberately planned to divide their grant, 
but the withdrawal of the former from the enter- 
prise and the coming of the Quakers altered the 
situation. Penn had no desire to join with Carteret 
in the government of a single province ; he wished 
rather to have a free iBeld wherein to test his own 
plan of government. The division named . in the 
duke's warrant of 1674 was not equitable, and 
consequently, in 1676, "after no little labor, trouble, 
and cost,"' a new arrangement was agreed upon. 
By a "quintipartite" deed (executed by Carteret 
on one side, and Penn, Lawrie, Lucas, and Byllynge 
on the other),' which rehearsed all the acts thus 
far determined in the establishment of title, a line 
was drawn from the *' most southwardly point of the 
east side of Little Egg Harbor" through the province 
northwestwardly to the junction of the Delaware 
River with the forty-first parallel of latitude. One 
part was to be called East New Jersey and the other 
West New Jersey.* In the mean time, Eldridge 
and Warner had conveyed their rights in Fenwick's 
tenth to Penn, Lucas, and Lawrie, **the better to 

» Whitehead, Civil and Judicial Hist, of N. J., 77, 78; N. J. 
Archives^ II., 163-167, 324; cf. Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1677- 
1680, { 778. ' A^. J. Archives, I., 232, 233. 

^ Ibid,, 327. ^ Ibid., 205-219. 


enable them to make a partition of the entire 
premises with Sir George Carteret.** In the years 
that followed there was much controversy over 
this line and many changes were made, so that 
the boimdary question was not permanently set- 
tled till an act of assembly of New Jersey in 

Each colony was now free to pursue its own career, 
but a new trouble, or, rather, an old trouble in a new 
fonn, arose from an unexpected quarter. When 
Andros was commissioned governor of New York, 
July I, 1674, he was instructed to govern, not only 
the other lands granted to the duke in 1664, but 
also "all the land from the west side of Connecticut 
River to the east side of Delaware Bay." * This fact 
seems to indicate that James was attempting to 
recover his control of New Jersey by denying that 
the right of government had been conveyed by the 
"lease and release.'* Andros, acting under his in- 
structions, made his first attempt to recover New 
Jersey for the duke by attacking the claims in West 
New Jersey, where Fenwick, apparently disregard- 
ing his lease to Eldridge and Warner, had issued 
proposals in March, 1675, for the settlement and 
government of "my colony.*'* Getting together a 
body of one hundred and fifty emigrants in the same 
year, he set sail in the Griffith and landed at Swamp 

> N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 215. 
* Pa. Magazine, VI., 86-90; cf. Dankers and Sluyter, JouT' 
nal, 242, 243; Harleian MSS., in British Museum, 7001, f. 30X. 

i68oJ THE JERSEYS 119 

Town, which because of its peaceful appearance he 
called New Salem.* 

Andros, aroused by this invasion, took immedi- 
ate action. He denied Fenwick's right to grant 
patents of land, and when Fenwick refused to obey 
his orders, caused him to be brought to New York 
by an armed force and only released him after he 
produced his title-deeds.' Andros had no case 
against Fenwick, as he soon discovered, for even 
the duke of York acknowledged that Fenwick's 
patents of land gave good title.* 

Andros was not content with his attack on West 
New Jersey ; he was already coming into conflict with 
Governor Carteret over commerce and trade. As 
in the Delaware, so in the East New Jersey harbors, 
he proposed to levy duties for the benefit of the 
proprietary. Taking advantage of the death of Sir 
George Carteret in 1679, Andros wrote forbidding 
Philip Carteret to exercise jurisdiction in New 
Jersey.* Carteret replied in kind, warning Andros 
not to trespass in East New Jersey. Thereupon the 
latter, in 1680, seized Carteret and brought him to 
New York, where he had him tried by special court 
for presuming to exercise jurisdiction and govern- 
ment over the subjects of King Charles.* The 

^N. y. "Archives, I., 185, 186; Harleian MSS., in British 
Museum, 7001, f. 309. * N. J. Archives , I., 187-204. 

•Co/, of State Pap., Col., 1677-1680, § 778. 

* N. J. Archives, I., 292-999. 

^ Ibid., 299-306, 316-318; Learning and Spicer, Grants, 677- 

Tp'jirii '■ • 


jury, to the great wrath of Andros, acquitted Car- 
teret; the East New Jersey assembly upheld their 
governor ; the towns refused the commissions issued 
by Andros; and the next year (1681), when the legal 
authorities showed that he had no case, not even 
against the Quakers, the duke gave up the struggle, 
confirmed Philip Carteret in the government, and 
forbade Andros to take further action.* In East 
New Jersey as in West New Jersey the efforts of the 
duke to recover possession proved a f ailtu*e. 

In the mean time. West New Jersey was receiving 
new settlers. While Fenwick was in possession 
of his one-tenth, Penn, Lawrie, and Lucas, acting 
as trustees for Byllynge, disposed of the nine- 
tenths to two companies of Quakers (one resident in 
Hull and other towns in Yorkshire, the other in 
London) , who at once displayed great energy in the 
work of settling the territory.^ In 1677 the ship 
Kent arrived in New York harbor with two him- 
dred colonists, who reported their intentions and 
displayed their titles. Although the duke of York 
was at that time contesting their claims, they 
received permission to settle on the Delaware, 
provided they would submit to the government at 
New York.' They then proceeded on their way, 
arrived at the Delaware, and laid the fotmdation of 
the town of Bridlington or Burlington. 

^ N.J. Archives, I., 323, 345-347; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 
1677-1680, § 1479; N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 984. 
' N. J. Archives, I., 933. • Ibid,, 239, 240. 

i68i] THE JERSEYS 121 

These colonists brought with them a f ainotis body 
of "Concessions and Agreements," the broadest, 
sanest, and most equitable charter draughted for any 
body of colonists up to this time. This doctmient 
assured privileges and rights to men of that day 
which must have seemed almost Utopian. It con- 
tains the best that the political thinkers of the 
period cotild furnish, and looks ahead to the time 
when men stated in forcible terms what they con- 
sidered the fimdamental rights of man. It was 
a true constitution; not octroyed, as had been 
the Concessions of 1665, but agreed upon and 
signed in England by emigrants, one htmdred and 
fifty-one in number.* 

The Concessions and Agreements provided for a 
government by a board of commissioners — a direc- 
tory appointed by the proprietaries, who, however, 
soon substituted a single executive — and an as- 
sembly freely chosen by the inhabitants to sit for 
a year, the members of which were to be paid and 
to have full liberty of speech and all parliamentary 
prerogatives. This body was to have entire control 
over the passing and the repealing of laws, agree- 
able to the Concessions and the laws of England. 
The commissioners were to impose no tallages, sub- 
sidies, or assessments, and the assembly was to 
levy only such taxes as were necessary. The fim- 
damental rights of the people are very definitely 
and strongly expressed — absolute religious freedom, 

* N. J, Archives, I., 422. 


right of trial by jury, no arbitrary imprisonment for 
debt, no capital ptmishment even for treason, tmless 
the assembly so decreed, publicity of courts of jus- 
tice, and right of petition. Save for the appoint- 
ment of the executive and the reserve of quit-rents, 
this constitution is thoroughly democratic, subordi- 
nating the executive to the legislative and making 
the latter responsible to the people.* That this 
document was in large part draughted by William 
Penn seems highly probable ; its spirit of forgiveness, 
justice, and brotherly love testifies to its origin. 

For three years the settlers made no effort to put 
the Concessions into operation, as the question of 
their right to rule was still imdetermined. But 
after persistent efforts Byllynge obtained a grant 
from the duke of York, August 6, 1680, recognizing 
the rights and title of the proprietaries and vesting 
in himself the government of the province.' He 
then sent over Samuel Jennings as his deputy, and 
the first assembly met November 21, 1681, lasting 
until the following January. The deputies acknowl- 
edged the authority of Jennings to act as their 
governor, provided he wotild assent to a bill of 
rights consisting of a preamble and ten clauses, still 
further restricting the power of the governor.* 
Fenwick sold his lands,* with a reservation, in 
1682 to Penn, now proprietary and governor of 

* N. J. Archives, I., 941-270. ' Ibid., 323-333. 

• Text in Smith, Hist, of N. J., 126-129. 

^ See his "Remonstrance/' March 12, 1679, ibid^Vl, 

i687] THE JERSEYS 123 

Pennsylvania, and accepted election to the assembly 
at Burlington in 1683, thus recognizing its juris- 
diction over his portion/ Ehiring the next four 
years the only serious difficulty that arose in the 
province concerned the right of the people to elect 
their own governor,' a right that was certainly not 
found in the Concessions and that Byllynge was 
unwilling to concede. 

Byllynge died in 1687, after an unsuccessful and 
troubled business career, and his interest in West 
New Jersey was bought by Daniel Coxe, a London 
merchant, and one of the most sanguine of colonial 
promoters. Coxe acquired lai^e quantities of land, 
not only in New Jersey, but in New York and Long 
Island also,' and made strenuous efforts to build 
up his colony. He issued alluring prospectuses for 
the piupose of attracting emigrants, started whale 
and cod fisheries, planned to tap the fur trade of 
the Northwest, and to establish a ''circular trade" 
between New Jersey, the other colonies, and 
Jamaica and Barbadoes in the West Indies. He 
started a fruit plantation at Cape May and a pot- 
tery at Burlington for "white and chiney ware," 
of which ;£i2oo worth was sold in the neighboring 
colonies and the West Indies.* He was greatly 

* Shroud, Hist, and Genealogy of Fenwick's Colony, 12. 
^N. J. Archives, I., 421. 

• "Account of the Quantity and Value of Coxe*s Land/' 
Rawlinson A/S5.. in Bod. Lib.. C 128, f. 42. 

*•• Daniel Coxe's Account of New Jersey," Pa. Magazine, 

VII.. 327-337- 


impressed with the possibilities of West New Jersey 
for supplying masts and boards, and speaks of a 
proposal made to him to furnish cedar-trees for the 
"roof and inward work*' of St. Paul's cathedral, 
rebuilding at that time (1675-1697) under the 
guidance of Sir Christopher Wren/ Though mak- 
ing every concession that he could in the way of 
poUtical privileges to the people,' he retained, as 
had Byllynge, control of the governorship ; and by 
transferring the seat of government to Burlington, 
raised that place to a position of first importance 
in the colony.* The brick houses, market - places, 
fairs, wharves, large timber yards, and extensive 
trade made it for some years a rival of Philadelphia. 
In 1685 the colony was threatened with a writ 
of quo warranto by Edward Randolph,* and in 
1688 was taken under the jurisdiction of Andros, 
governor of the Dominion of New England; but 
after the revolution of 1688 it was returned to 
Governor Coxe, who, disturbed by the attitude of 
the crown and somewhat embarrassed in his affau^, 
resolved to sell his interest in the colony. The 
property and rights were bought by a group of 
proprietaries called the West New Jersey Society, 
of which Coxe himself remained a member and for 
which he drew up a plan of management.* This 

* "Coxe's Accotint of New Jersey,'* Pa. Magazine, VII., 329. 
*See Coxe's letter of Sept. 5, 1687, in Smith, Hist, of N. J., 
190, note k. ' Thomas, Account of West New Jersey, 15, 16. 

^Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1685-1688, §§ 304, 309, 2112. 
•Smith, Hist, of N. J., 207; Proposals Made by Coxe, 

i68sl THE JERSEYS 125 

society controlled the government and lands of the 
colony, but agreed that Fletcher, governor of New 
York, should retain command of the militia.* 
Under these proprietaries West New Jersey re- 
mained until its final surrender to the crown in 1702. 

In East New Jersey PhiUp Carteret won his 
victory over Andros in 1681; but his career as 
governor was almost over. Scarcely had the 
assembly convened in October, 1681, when the 
deputies charged Carteret with violating the Con- 
cessions "by interpretations contrary to the literal 
sense of the same."' In the year 1682 he re- 
signed his government, and the board of trustees, 
to whom Sir George Carteret had devised his rights 
in New Jersey for the pajnment of his debts and 
legacies in 1679,* offered these rights at once to 
whosoever would purchase them. 

They were disposed of at public sale to twelve 
Quakers, with William Penn at the head, who 
organized themselves as a body of proprietaries for 
the government of the province.* Soon afterwards 
this body of twelve became associated in a business 
partnership with the earl of Perth, Robert Barclay, 
a famous Quaker apologist, and his brother David, 
and nine others, some of whom were Scottish 
Presbyterians, who thus became tenants in common 

Rawlinson MSS., in Bod. Lib., C 138, ff. 46, 47 (undated, but 
probably 169 1). 

' Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1689-1692, {2250. 

» N. 7. Archives, I., 356. » Ibid,, 388. 

* Ibid., 366-369, 373-375- 


with the first twelve. A majority of the twenty- 
four were Quakers, so that both the Jerseys came 
under Quaker control. It is not difficult to see 
in all these transactions a definite attempt of the 
Society of Friends to obtain a home for its mem- 
bers in America. 

For the benefit of the twenty-four proprietaries 
the duke of York executed a deed of release, dated 
March 14, 1683, investing them with rights of 
government as well as with title to the soil.* 
Already had Robert Barclay been named as gov- 
ernor, and he remained in England, governing the 
province by deputy. A new frame of government, 
much less democratic than the old Concessions, was 
sent over in 1683, signed by sixteen of the twenty- 
four proprietaries.' The new code was distinctly 
lacking in directness and simplicity, and cotild 
hardly have done anjrthing to improve the govern- 
ment of the colony or to lessen the complication 
growing out of the numerous proprietary rights in 
the provinces. Fortimately, it was never put into 

Rudyard, the first deputy governor under Barclay, 
was recalled in 1683, and Gawen Lawrie, who had 
been interested in New Jersey since 1675, came 
over as governor. **Here wants nothing but peo- 
ple,** he wrote back; "there is not a poor body 
in the province."* Strenuous efforts were made to 

* N. J, Archives, I., 383-394. ' Ihid., 395-4io« 

■ Whitehead, East Jersey, App. ,418; Smith, Hist, of N. J,, 1 77. 

1702] THE JERSEYS 127 

promote settlement. Scx)t, of Pitlockie, prepared 
an elaborate prospectus, quoting evidence from the 
province to prove its desirability; while the pro- 
prietaries — notably Barclay — organized bodies of 
emigrants and started them on their way. Grad- 
ually the colony began to fill with a sober and in- 
dustrious people. Lawrie called for able-bodied 
men to plough and till the soil, and the general 
sentiment seemed to be that riches lay in com and 
cattle rather than in trade and commerce.* 

The attempt of the proprietaries to promote trade 
and to obtain the recognition of Perth Amboy as a 
port of entry led to a long controversy with New 
York, which probably had much to do with the 
inauguration of the quo warranto proceedings against 
them. In 1688 they handed over all rights of 
government to the duke of York, reserving only the 
title to the soil, and East New Jersey was annexed 
to New York. Though restored to the proprietaries 
after 1689, the colony continued to be a source of 
trouble to them, owing to disputes with New York 
on one side and the inhabitants of the colony on 
the other, and was finally sturendered to the crown 
in 1702. 

The weakness of the Jerseys lay in the fact that 
from the first grant to Carteret and Berkeley to the 
final surrender they were utilized by their pro- 

* Historical Mantiscripts Commission, Report, VI., pt. i., 
484, VII., 485; Smith, Hist, of N. J., 181, i8a; Whitehead, Eas$ 
Jersey, App., 401. 


prietaries as sources of profit and revenue. Pro- 
prietary rights in both the colonies were bought 
and sold so frequently and controlled by so many 
stockholders that the management of the colonies 
was neither systematic nor efficient. Controversies 
among the proprietaries themselves, between the 
proprietaries and the inhabitants, and between the 
colonies and their neighbors rendered a ra^id and 
prosperous growth practically impossible. 



(1663-167 1) 

WHILE New England, New York, and New 
Jersey were working out the problems of 
colonization and reorganization, settlement was also 
in progress in the vacant or sparsely settled regions 
of the southern coast. There the low land, dif- 
fering essentially from the coast formations of 
New England, constituted a plateau but a few 
feet above the level of the sea, which was traversed 
by wide -mouthed rivers and skirted by islands 
often large in extent and identical in soil and 
verdure with the main-land. The broken and in- 
dented coast formed natural harbors, and the rivers, 
which were navigable from the sea back to the 
rapids and falls of the second terrace or lower 
pine belt, made transportation easy. By furnishing 
a means of internal communication unknown to 
the people of the northern colqnies, they made 
possible the scattered settlements which charac- 
terized the southern colonies, notably Virginia. 

To the south of Virginia lay a wide and empty 
territory stretching indefinitely towards the Spanish 
VOL. v.— 9 129 


settlement at St. Aiigustine. After the revoking 
of the charter of the London Company in 1624 
the king was free to make such grant of this southern 
territory as he pleased, and in 1629 he gave to Sir 
Robert Heath all the region lying between the 
thirty-first and thirty-sixth parallels of latitude. 
Heath's plans fell still-bom among colonial ventures. 
The land was not easily accessible either overland 
or by sea, and such was its reputation for unwhole- 
someness that few men from other colonies ventured 
to explore it. Moreover, it was claimed in part by 
Spain, and hence was looked upon askance by 
Englishmen who were seeking homes in the New 

After the failure of Raleigh's unfortimate ex- 
peditions, the first Englishman, so far as we know, X 
to reach Carolina was Henry Tavemer, a ship ^^ 
captain employed by English promoters, Vassell ^ 
and Kingswell, to carry passengers to Virginia. In 
1632 Tavemer made a v6yage of discovery in his 
ship, the Mayflower, and entered the St. Helena 
River. In 1634 he came from England in a new 
ship, the Thomas, with servants, clothing, and 
provisions for the purpose of taking Kingswell and 
his company from Virginia to settle in Carolina, 
but for some reason the plan failed.* Between 
1632 and 1660 only one journey is recorded.' About 

* MSS. in Public Record Office, Admiralty Court, Instance and 
Prize, Examinations, 51, Dec. 12, 17, 1634, April 14, 1635. 
' N. C, Col. Records, I., 19, 20. 


1660, however, two efforts were made at settlement, 
one by colonists from Virginia, who planted a com- 
mimity at Albemarle, on the Chowan River, des- 
tined to become the nucleus of the colony of North 
Carolina; the other by New England traders from 
Massachusetts, who, after inspecting the lands at the 
mouth of the Cape Fear River — then known as the 
Charles — departed, leaving behind them, attached 
to a post, a warning in which they denounced the 

Thus far, therefore, the territory south of Virginia 
was xmoccupied except in the northern border, at 
a point some seventy miles from the James. Just 
at this time discontent and tmeasiness were rife in 
Barbadoes. The land there was originally allotted 
in small parcels, the largest of which seems to have 
been thirty acres in size, and proved only sufficient 
for the maintenance of a man and his family:* 
and when the necessities of sugar-planting led to 
the consolidating of these small estates, many land- 
holders were forced to emigrate to other colonies. 
In addition, the return of Charles II. to the English 
throne was followed by restrictive measures which 
created dissatisfaction, because they were deemed 
contrary to the liberal terms given to the royalists 
by the charter of 1652, in consequence of their 
surrendering the island to the fleet of Parliament. 

Among those directly interested in the develop- 

* N. C. Col. Records, I., 36-38. 

* Davis, Cavaliers and Roundheads of Barbadoes, 80. 


ment of the island was Colonel John Colleton, 
major - general in Barbadoes, a member of the 
Barbadian council under the protectorate/ and a 
man of influence and authority in the island. Col- 
leton returned to England in 1660 and was made a 
member of the newly appointed Council for Foreign 
Plantations/ where he came into friendly relations 
with Anthony Ashley Cooper (soon after created 
Lord Ashley), a member of the committee of the 
Council of State in 1653.' Both Colleton and 
Ashley knew of the unoccupied lands of Carolina, 
and there can be little doubt that when the discon- 
tent of many of the Barbadians gave rise to a new 
project for a settlement elsewhere, Colleton suggested 
applying to the king for a grant of these continental 

As both Colleton and Ashley had served the pro- 
tectorate, they deemed it wise to associate with 
themselves others who, by their loyalty to the king 
in exile, had a greater claim on the king's bounty 
and were at the same time thoroughly interested in 
colonial affairs. Of these Clarendon and Carteret 
stand out most prominently. Consequently, April 
3. 1 663 1 probably at the request* of Ashley and 

* Cat. of State Pap., Col., i574-i66o,pp. 456, 476. 

» Ibid., 1661-1668, II 91, 470; N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col Hist., 
III., 48, 49. • Col. of State Pap., Col., i574-i66o,p.4i2. 

* Ashley's influence seems likely from the known facts as to 
his proctiring the grant of the Bahamas in 1670. See Shaftesbury 
Papers (S.C.Uist.Soc., Collections,V.), 153,180,207-210; Cal.of 
State Pap., Col., 1669-1674, I311, 1675-1676, | 384. 


others of his colleagues, Charles 11. caused the first 
charter of Carolina to be issued to eight proprietaries 
— Clarendon, Craven, Albemarie (who as General 
Monck had saved England from a third civil war), 
Carteret, Lord John Berkeley, Sir William Berkeley 
(governor of Virginia), Ashley, and Colleton, now 
Sir John Colleton. Craven, Carteret, and John 
Berkeley were faithful members of the cotmcil com- 
mittee known as the Lords of Trade. 

The Carolina charter^ was modelled after pre- 
ceding charters, and in nearly all its parts was 
identical with the grants made to Robert Heath and 
Lord Baltimore, except that the patentees were a 
group instead of a single proprietary. The territory 
granted extended north and south from the thirty- 
sixth to the thirty-first parallel and westward to 
the south seas. Hn matters of administration and 
government the charter reproduced the rights, 
jurisdictions, and immunities of the palatinate of 
Durham, that independent, self-governing fief 
on the northern border of England which until 
1536 remained outside the control of the kings of 
England and formed a petty state by itself.' The 
patentees of Carolina and their heirs were made true 
and absolute lords, and the territorv was called a 
province. The lands were to be held in free and 
common socage at a fixed rent of twenty marks. 

' A^. C. Col. Records, I., 20-23. 

' Lapsley, The Palatinate of Durham (Harvard Historical 
Studies, VIIL). 


The proprietaries could grant titles of rank, were 
endowed with the patronage and advowson of 
churches, and could erect forts, fortresses, cities, 
towns, and boroughs. In matters of government 
they were granted full and absolute power to make 
laws, with the advice and assent of the freemen 
or their delegates, whom they could summon when 
they desired. They were empowered to issue or- 
dinances, to execute all laws, to receive customs 
duties, to erect courts of judicature, and to establish 
a militia. They could allow full freedom of con- 
science if they wished, and free -trade as far as 
it was not forbidden by English statute. 

Inasmuch as the original purpose of the grant 
was to provide a refuge for the discontented Bar- 
badians, it was expected that they would be among 
the first colonists in the new territory. At the 
outset, however, certain claims had to be quieted. 
The old Heath title began to show signs of life ; and 
about the same time a group of London adventurers 
who had subscribed funds to aid some New England 
undertaking (perhaps that of 1660) put in a claim 
to the territory about Cape Fear, based on the 
right of first discovery.* These claims were swept 
aside by an order of the Privy Council, and the way 
was thus cleared for the Barbadians. 

Sir John Colleton was treasurer of the proprieta- 
ries, and through his friends in Barbadoes was al- 
ready urging planters to come to Carolina. August 

* N. C. Col. Records, I., 34-38. 


10, 1663, an expedition tinder Captain Hilton 
started from Barbadoes to spy out the new land, 
financed by a large body of planters led by Henry 
Evans and John Vassall, who drew up a plan of set- 
tlement, which they submitted to the proprietaries, 
providing for the erection of a "county or corpora- 
tion" on the soil of Carolina, with full powers of 
local government.^ The proprietaries did not like 
the Barbadian draught and suggested another plan, 
which bears the date of August 21, 1663.* This 
interesting document provided for a governor and 
coxmcil to be chosen by the proprietaries. 

Nevertheless, they did not insist on their own 
scheme, but allowed their agents, Peter Colleton and 
Modyford, to exercise their discretion in a series of 
proposals or concessions issued probably some time 
after January 6, 1664. Their work is important, as, 
indeed, are all these various draughts, in showing 
the trend of political thought at that time. During 
the years from 1640 to 1660, both in England and the 
colonies, men were seeking for fundamental principles 
of government and were endeavoring to put them 
into practice. The charter of Barbadoes of 1652 
emphasized freedom of conscience, assemblies freely 
and voluntarily elected, and freedom of trade ; and 
it forbade monopolies and taxation without the 

* N. C. Col. Records, I., 34, 35. 39-42; Col. of State Pap., Col., 
1661-1668, { 457; Hilton, Relation (1664), reprinted in Charles- 
ion Year-Book, 1884, pp. 227-255; Shaftesbury Papers, 10, 11. 

' Rivers, Sketch of South Carolina, 335-337; N. C. Col, 
Rscords, I., 43, 153; Cal. of State Pap., Col,, 1675-1676, { 377. 


consent of the taxed.* It was therefore natural 
that Modyford, who had helped to negotiate the 
Barbadoes treaty, should have joined with Colleton 
in promising liberty of conscience, immunity from 
customs, freedom of trade as far as the charter 
allowed, a free assembly, and laws which, if once 
accepted by the proprietaries, could not be repealed 
except by the power that enacted them.' 

It is clear that in England the necessity was felt of 
granting prospective colonists the most liberal terms 
possible, and of allowing principles to have utter- 
ance in America that were no longer advocated at 
home. Yet for some reason, not entirely clear, the 
proprietaries refused to confirm the terms oflFered 
by Modyford and Peter Colleton, and consequently 
the first migration from Barbadoes was given up. 

The proprietaries, lest they might seem to sleep 
on their patent, kept up an intermittent activity 
during the summer of 1664,' and in the winter be- 
gan new negotiations with Sir John Yeamans and 
eighty - five associates in Barbadoes. A formal 
agreement was carefully drawn up under which the 
new settlement was to be made, and on January 7, 
1665, a new body of Concessions was presented.* 

This plan of government is the one already familiar 
to the student of the history of the Jerseys, for six 
weeks afterwards it was granted by Berkeley and 

* Schomburgk, INst. of Barbadoes, 280-283. 

* Charleston Year-Book, 1884, pp. 255-266. 

» Col. of State Pap., Col., 1661-1668, § 1192. 

* AT. C. Col. Records, I., 75-92. 


Carteret to those about to settle in that special 
propriety. Though the Concessions were liberal in 
allowing toleration, free elections, naturalization, and 
the right of petition, they lacked the simplicity of the 
earlier privileges, and were thoroughly dominated 
by the all-pervading authority of the proprietaries. 
They were approved by the settlers of New Jersey — 
at least by those who wrote the alluring descrip- 
tions of that province for the purpose of attracting 
emigrants; but they never had much influence in 
Carolina, and, compared with the systems already 
in force in Maryland and New England, they have 
the character of a constitution based on theory and 
good intentions rather than on practical experi- 

Yeamans's expedition left Barbadoes in October, 
1665, and after many vicissitudes reached the 
mouth of the Charles River, within the region al- 
ready set off by the proprietaries as the county 
of Clarendon, and, according to Sanford*s account, 
" newly begun to be peopled." This statement may 
refer to a settlement said to have been made by 
Englishmen some time in 1663 or 1664, to which 
Sir William Berkeley also may have referred when 
he wrote that **two hundred families from New 
England, we hear, are seated a little to the south of 
us." * Whether or not the Yeamans party foimd 

* Sanford, The Port Royal Discovery, N. C. Col. Records, I., 
119; A Brief Description of the Province of Carolina, ibid., 156 ; 
Egerton MSS., in British Museum, 2395, ff. 362-364. 


xtOers already oa the ground* the setUemciit lan- 
guished from the b^^immig. Rebef was vainly 
sought from Viiginia, and a second diarter was ob- 
tained in 1665, according to which the boandaries 
were extended to include the territory southward. 
To open up that r^[ion, Sanford undertook an ad- 
venturous voyage, and, having rediscovered Port Roy- 
al in July, 1666, took formal possession of that country 
by turf and twig. But this discovery availed little. 
Deserted by their leader, Yeamans, who returned to 
Barbadoes, the settlers became desperate. Clothing 
and necessaries failed, the Indians becanie threaten- 
ing, the conditions of land-settling embodied in the 
Concessions proved to be exceedingly irksome, and 
no new settlers arrived either from Barbadoes or 
from the adjoining colonies.* Fmally, the colonists 
broke up the settlement in the fall of 1667 and scat- 
tered, some going to Albemarle and Virginia, others 
to Boston. Once more, save for the single colony 
on the Chowan River, Carolina was without a settle- 
ment within its borders. 

The plan of colonizing Carolina from Barbadoes 
having failed, a change in policy seemed neces- 
sary. Ashley now came forward more prominently 
than before as the true leader of the undertaking. 
The new patent of 1665 included the Albemarle 
settlement on the north, which by this time was 
fairly well established. In 1664 William Drummond 

* Letter of John Vassall, N. C. Col. Records, I., 160. Cf. Cal, 
of State Pap., Col., 1675-1676, § 390. 


was sent over as governor/ and a general assembly 
met in 1665, which may have been composed, as the 
Concessions demanded, of a governor, council, and 
twelve delegates. It is noteworthy that the first 
recorded action of the body is a petition to the lords 
proprietaries begging for easier methods of allotting 
lands, on the ground that the existing conditions 
discouraged many who might otherwise have come 
there from Virginia. The assembly also protested 
against the proprietaries' attempt to make the peo- 
ple settle in towns.* In 1667, under the Concessions 
of 1665, the assembly successfully petitioned that 
the colony might have its lands on the same 
terms as were allowed in Virginia:' according to 
a contemporary, "rather than to be stinted with 
small proportions at a great rent." 

When the colony at Albemarle was thus fairly 
started on its way, Ashley renewed his attempt to 
settle the southern portion of the province, and, 
stimulated by the reports of Sanford, determined 
to plant the next colony at Port Royal. In the 
mean time, dissatisfied with all the proposals for 
government that had thus far been draughted, he 
planned an entirely new scheme, and called upon 
John Locke to draw up a frame of government 
suitable for a palatinate. This extraordinary docu- 

* Bassett, Consiiiutional Beginnings of North Carolina; N. C, 
Col, Records, I., 93; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1661 - 1668, 
II 908, 1005, 119a, 1222. 

» Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1661-1668, | 1005. 

* N, C. Col. Records, I., 175, 176. 


merit, known as the Fundamental Constitutions,* 
was completed in 1669, and is a notable instance 
of a constitution made to order without regard to 
the needs of the people for whom it was intended. 
The proprietaries were to become a group of pala- 
tine officials — palatine, admiral, chamberlain, and 
the like — each in full and absolute control of some 
part of what was intended to be the administrative 
business of the province. Within the territory itself 
an hereditary nobility was to be created, consisting 
of landgraves and casiques, and colonies of free- 
holders were to constitute the mass of the people. 
The whole territory was to be divided into coxmties, 
and these into seignories to be held by the proprieta- 
ries ; baronies and manors to be held by the nobility ; 
and precincts within which ** colonies" were to be 
planted at the rate of four to a precinct. 

Elaborate rules based on feudal law touched in- 
heritance, alienation, devolution, and escheat, and 
gave rise at once to great discontent. The free- 
holders were to have their lands in the precincts and 
to pay quit-rent ; to occupy sundry offices, provided 
they possessed a sufficient amount of freehold land ; 
and to vote for delegates to the parliament. Lowest 
of all, except slaves, were to be the class of leet-men 
and women — a faint survival of English villeinage — 

* N. C. Col. Records, I., 187-205. The original draught, with 
Locke's corrections, in Deputy Keeper of the Public Records, 
33(i Report (1872), App. iii., 258-269; and in Shaftesbury 
Papers. Cf. Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1669- 16 74, §§84, 157; for 
proprietaries' point of view, see ibid., 1685-1688, § 1162. 


tenants settled in villages on the baronies and 
manors and bound to the soil. There were to be a 
grand council, eight proprietors* courts, county 
courts with justices and sheriffs, precinct courts 
with justices and stewards, a grand jury, itinerant 
judges, petty juries, and finally a parliament com- 
posed of the nobility, and freeholders elected under 
a considerable property franchise. 

This constitution, except in a few instances, where 
baronies were actually laid out for settlers, was never 
applied in Carolina, but the attempt of the pro- 
prietaries to force its use for more than twenty 
years had an important influence on the develop- 
ment of the colony. It is chiefly interesting as 
showing what Locke, Ashley, and the others thought 
a palatinate ought to be. They wished to avoid 
too numerous a democracy and to introduce ar- 
istocracy and rich men, but they wished also to 
give expression to the prevailing ideas of the day by 
admitting full religious toleration,* trial by jury, 
and a limited measure of self-government. Planned 
as a general scheme for all the colonies that Ashley 
was to promote — eventually three — its provisions 
seemed to him the best that had ever been stated 
anywhere, its conditions the fairest, and its laws the 
"equalest" that a people could have. "We have 
no other aim," he said in 1671, *'in the framing of 
otir laws but to make every one as safe and happy 

* Shaftesbury Papers, 312; Shaftesbury Papers, MSS. in Public 
Record Office, X., 8 (iv.). 


as the state of human affairs is capable oL"^ 
Locke and Ashley were very earnest in their wofk; 
the fonner spoke of the colonies as his ''darlings" 
and did a vast amount of clerical labor in their 
behalf, while the latter gave thought, time, and 
money to their development. 

While Locke was providing a form of govern- 
ment Ashley was promoting a new settlement. 
Fimds were provided by the proprietaries,' vessds 
were purchased, some ninety-two immigrant-freemen 
and servants were obtained, and careful instructions 
were drawn up.' The expedition sailed in August, 
1669, for Barbadoes,* where it arrived at the very 
end of October; and with some sixty additional 
settlers* the fleet started late in November for 

After a stormy voyage and many hardships the 
voyagers reached the Bermudas. There Sir John 
Yeamans, who was to be the governor of the new 
settlement, turned back, handing over the governor- 
ship to a certain William Sayle, a Bermudian and a 
Dissenter, as were most of the emigrants,* and 
**a man of no great sufficiency."^ The expedition 

* Shaftesbury Papers, 208-210, 314; Cal, of State Pap,, Col., 
1669-1674, S 492. 

» Col. of State Pap., Col., 1669-1674, || 54. 55- 

* Shaftesbury Papers, 11 7-132. * Ibid.^ X33-"^S^« 

* Accoxints vary a little. Cf. Shaftesbury Papers, 157, 163, 
178; Col. of State Pap., Col., 1669-1674, { 163. 

* Rivers, South Carolina, App., 462; Shaftesbury Papers, 171. 
' Ibid., 217, 218; cf. ibid., 163, 189, 291; N. C. Col. Records, 

I., 207. 

I I * 


went first to Port Royal, following the instructions 
of the proprietaries, but finally turned northward 
and landed near the mouth of the Kiawha, a river 
to which the settlers gave the name of Ashley, after 
their proprietary.^ Here was established the set- 
tlement of old Charles Town. 

For the first year the colony can hardly be said to 
have prospered. The town was laid out, lands near 
by were distributed, and some attempt was made 
to plant com and potatoes, but early frosts spoiled 
the crops, and provisions soon became scarce. 
Through the efforts of Dr. Henry Woodward, who 
was familiar with the Indian language, friendly re- 
lations were entered into with the adjacent tribes, 
and some help was obtained; but it became neces- 
sary to send to Virginia for new supplies and to 
Barbadoes and New England for horses, cows, and 
more settlers. The place proved healthful, and 
of the few that died only one was from England; 
later, however, fever and ague became frequent 

Political troubles arose early. Sayle was an old 
man and in bad health and had **much lost himself 
in his government."^ At the beginning, acting 
under the instructions, he caused five councillors to 
be elected by the people, but he called no ** parlia- 
ment" because there were not enough freemen to 

* Carteret, Relation, reprinted in Charleston Year-Book, 1883, 
p. 370; Shaftesbury Papers, 165-168; Mathews, Relation, ibid., 
169-171. ' Shaftesbury Papers, 203, 204. 


elect representatives. Trouble having arisen over 
the observance of Sunday, Sayle called the freemen 
together and read them a series of orders drawn 
up by the cotmcil on this and one or two other 
matters. At this point William Owens, "a Magna 
Charta and Petition of Rights man," told the people 
that they could have no laws without a parliament, 
and in some way persuaded them to elect delegates ; * 
but this body, irregularly chosen and irregularly 
called, accomplished nothing. After Sayle's death, 
March 4, 1671, West was elected governor by the 
colonists, ** because they stood in great need of a 
head at once, " but he issued the same orders some- 
what revised. Owens declared that they were 
illegal ** because the great seal of the province was 
not in the colony," ' and West had some difficulty 
in quieting the colonists, who feared lest the titles 
to their lands might be endangered because the 
great seal of the province remained in England.* 

* Shaftesbury Papers, 291, 292, 300. ' Ibid., 294. 

■ See Col, of State Pap,, Col., 1681-1685, 1 1733. 




THE situation at Charles Town was not satis- 
factory to Ashley, who was in the full flush 
of his colonial undertaking, and was determined 
that his plans should not be thwarted. Urged on 
by the governor and council of Carolina, and by 
certain merchants of Bermuda, he "got of his 
Majestic," on November i, 1670, a grant of the 
Bahamas for himself and the other remaining 
proprietaries.^ He placed the colony under the 
government of the Fundamental Constitutions, with 
Hugh Wentworth as governor, and planned to 
build up a system of co-operation and trade among 
the three colonies situated at Albemarle, Charles 
Town, and New Providence in the Bahamas.' A 
later attempt to plant a colony on the Edisto seems 
to indicate that he meant to include other settle- 
ments also in the union. To let the Charles Town 
settlement die would endanger the entire scheme, 
so that in the summer of 1670 Ashley ordered 

* Ante, 132, n. 

' Shaftesbury Papers , 207. Cf. N. C. Col. Records, I., 228. 

VOL. V — 10 145 


Sayle to issue a proclamation offering all sorts of 
inducements to the people of Barbadoes to come 
to Carolina. Thomas Colleton, son of the late 
Sir John and brother of the present proprietary, 
Sir Peter, took the matter in hand and sent from 
Barbadoes the John and Thomas with forty-two 
passengers, who reached Charles Town February 
16, 1 6 7 1 . Eight days later the Carolina arrived with 
sixty-four passengers.* 

The new settlers were welcomed by the colonists 
and received homes near the town. The leader of 
the Barbadians was Captain Godfrey, Sir Peter 
Colleton's deputy and an experienced soldier and 
planter. The colony needed men of this type to 
take places in the council and to build up agficultural 
life, for the earlier settlers had been chiefly trades- 
men by profession. In the same year Ashley sent 
another ship from England, the Blessing, which 
arrived May 14, 167 1, and he declared that he pro- 
posed to continue sending ships until a thotisand peo- 
ple were in the colony and the place was established. 

The active proprietaries were now only four — 
Ashley (made earl of Shaftesbury April 23, 1672), 
Craven, Carteret, and Colleton. Seemingly they 
realized that their Grand Model could not be made 
immediately practicable, for they had erected a 
temporary form of government in the commission 
and instructions issued to Sayle in 1669;' and now 

* Shaftesbury Papers, 266-268. 

' Ibid., 1 1 7-1 19; Rivers, bouth Carolina^ App., 340, 347. 

i67i] THE CAROLINAS 147 

did the same in a new body of instructions and 
a set of temporary laws sent over on the Blessing. 
Again tugging settlement in towns as safer and more 
conducive to trade, they sent over a description of 
a town organization such as they would like to see 

As the settlers increased in number, the govern- 
ment of the colony began to take definite form. After 
the death of Sayles, West became governor, but 
Yeamans, arriving from Barbadoes in July, 1671, 
claimed the office, because under the Fundamental 
Constitutions only landgraves could be governors, 
and he was the oidy person in the colony with such a 
title. West retained the governorship, however, for 
seven months longer, and managed the colony suc- 
cessfully. The cotmcil, composed of the deputies 
of the proprietaries and five elected by the peo- 
ple, met regularly and prepared bills for the parlia- 
ment which began to sit for the first time in August, 
1671. Several important measures were passed, one 
of which, authorizing the payment of the Lords 
Proprietaries' debts, was received with great ap- 
proval in England, for profits were as yet unknown 
to the proprietaries. They must have spent the 
equivalent of $250,000 to $300,000 upon the 
colony,' and neither at this time nor afterwards 
received any return for their expenditure. In later 

* Co/, of State Pap,, Col., 1669-16 74, J 514. C£. Shaftesbury 
Papers, 343. 

' Ibid., 358; McCrady, Hist, of S. C, I., 373, 374. 


years the stockholders' rights depreciated greatly 
in value and were often sold for almost nothing, 
a fact that will explain the inferior character of 
some of the later proprietaries. 

Yeamans finally got his commission and arrived 
in April, 1672, but he soon made it clear that he had 
sought the office only for his own good. He rep- 
resented the Barbadians in the colony, and, as the 
proprietaries finally discovered, took advantage of 
his position to benefit himself.* They discovered, 
too, that instead of trying to pay the debt of the 
colony, due to the proprietaries, as West had pro- 
posed, he was constantly calling for new expendi- 
tures. They therefore revoked his commission, and 
in April, 1674, created West a landgrave and ap- 
pointed him governor.' The colony now entered on 
a period of prosperous rule for eight years. 

During this period and down to 1690 the number 
of colonists increased rapidly. In 1672 there were 
four hundred and six men, women, and children in 
the colony;' by 1685 the population had risen 
to at least two thousand five htmdred, if we may 
accept Ashe's estimate of one thousand to twelve 
hundred in 1682.* The first considerable body of 
new-comers consisted of more than a htmdred French 
Protestants. The commissioners of customs op- 

^ CcU. of State Pap., Col., 1669-1674, 325, || 861, 971; 
Shaftesbury Papers, 416-419. ' N. C. Col. Records, I., aao. 

* Col. of State Pap., Col., 1669-1674, { 736. 

* Carroll, Hist. Collections, II., 82. 

i68s] THE CAROLINAS 149 

posed their departtire, thinking that they should be 
encoxiraged to remain in England ; but both the king 
and the proprietaries favored the scheme, a subscrip- 
tion was raised, and the consent of the Lords of 
Trade and Plantations was obtained.* Many men 
of estates recommended by the proprietaries to the 
governor of Carolina went out also and received lands 
in the colony. Additional settlers came from Bar- 
badoes and other colonies, and for a decade after 
1680 the influx was rapid. 

The uneasiness and popular unrest in England 
during the years from 1679 to 1685 sent large 
numbers of Protestants to America, many of whom 
came to Carolina. Five hundred from western 
England are said to have arrived in one month, 
thus doubling the population of the settlement.' 
A large colony of Scots, who at first intended to go 
to New York, changed their minds and went to 
Port Royal in 1683, and other Scots would have 
followed had they not been prevented.' 

For several years the proprietaries had been 
urging the transfer of the centre of settlement 
from the old town to a place better adapted for 
trade and capable of defence. The site selected 

* N. C. Col. Records, I., 24a, 243; Col. of State Pap., Col., 
1677-1680, If 875, 888, 918-920, 930, 967, 1000, 1006, 1 149, 
X167, 1233. 

' McCrady, Hist. 0/ S. C, 193, 194; Archdale and Oldmixon, 
in Carroll, Hist. Collections, II. 

* CcU. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685. §§809, 1774; Hist. 
MSS. Commission, Report, VII., 407; XIV., pt. iii., 113. 


was across the river at Oyster Point, at the junction 
of the Ashley and Cooper rivers. Here in 1680 
new Charies Town arose, and before a decade passed 
became the largest centre of trade and the most 
important settlement south of Philadelphia. In 
1682 the settlement began to expand somewhat 
towards the interior.* 

Progress from the sea-coast into the back country 
was, however, slow, and the difficulties which attend- 
ed the occupation of the uplands, where lay the 
best soil in the colony, proved a serious obstacle to 
the growth of the settlement. Though in the main 
relations with the Indians were peaceful, trouble 
began in 168 1 with the Westoes, whom Thomas Newe 
spoke of as "a tribe of barbarous Indians, being 
not above sixty in number, but by reason of their 
great growth and cruelty in feeding on all their 
neighbors, terrible to all other Indians, of which 
there are about forty other kingdoms." The 
colonists were determined to exterminate this bodv 
of ** man- eaters," who had killed two ** eminent 
planters"; and not only went out themselves in 
small bands, but aroused and armed the peaceful 
Indians to discover the settlement of the Westoes 
and to destroy the tribe. This attack aroused a 
general excitement along the frontier, and for three 
years an intermittent Indian warfare continued. 

To danger from the Indians was soon added 

* Ca/. 0/ State Pap., Col., 1677 -1680, § 1233; 1681-1685, 
J 497- 

>% ■*»■" ■ i" jag "tft iS 

i68s] THE CAROLINAS 151 

danger from the Spaniards settled at St. Augustine 
since 1565 : "a place," as Newe wrote, ** belonging to 
our proprietors about one hundred and fifty miles 
to the south of us, where the Spaniards are seated 
and have a pretty strong town/' * The colonists 
prepared for defence, and desired a just pretext to 
imdertake an aggressive war, but the proprietaries 
rigidly forbade them to take any offensive action, 
inasmuch as England and Spain were at peace.' 
In 1685 the Spaniards appeared in force before the 
English settlements and burned many homes. The 
colonists retaliated by arranging with two French 
privateers to attack St. Augustine, but changed 
their plans because of peremptory orders which 
came from the proprietaries. In 1686 the Spaniards 
appeared again, and destroyed Stewart's Town, the 
seat of the Scottish settlement of Lord Cardross at 
Port Royal. 

Thus far the colonists had suffered but little from 
proprietary interference in matters of government. 
To be sure, Shaftesbury declared that * * the compass 
you are to steer by is the Fimdamental Constitu- 
tions, the Temporary Laws, and the Instructions," 
and bade his deputy, Mathews, ** obstinately to 
stick to those rules and to oppose all deviations." ' 
Nevertheless, at no time during his period of control 

* Newe to his father, Rawlinson MSS., in Bod. Lib., D 810. f. 54. 
^Ccd. of State Pap,, Col, 1681-1685, § 1651; cf. 1685-1688, 

* Shaftesbury Papers, 397-399; Cal, of State Pap., Col,, 
1669-1674, § 863. 


did he seek to force on the colonists more of the 
Fundamentals than " were capable of being put into 
practice." The government was in the main simple 
and satisfactory, the colonists minding but little 
the appointment of nominal landgraves and casiques, 
the proprietaries' control of patronage, and the crea- 
tion of baronies. 

From 1672 to 1682 the life of the colony flowed 
on smoothly. But after the latter year Morton, 
who had aided the emigration of Dissenters from 
western England, was superseded by West ; and fre- 
quent changes in government followed, which mark 
a period of unrest and of friction between pro- 
prietaries and colonists. Nearly all the original 
patentees were dead: Shaftesbury was disgraced; 
and only John Berkeley and Craven remained. The 
others were new men, with less knowledge and less 
tact than their predecessors, and their task was 
made heavier by the increase in the size of the 
colony, the presence among the colonists of men 
of great independence and experience, and the 
frequent recurrence of intricate and difficult prob- 
lems. Proprietary interference from 1682 to 1689 
was of such a character as to drive the colonists 
almost to open rebellion. 

At first the proprietaries attempted to tamper 
with the freedom of trade in the colony ; and Thomas 
Newe reports that he found the colonists in a state 
of great excitement in 1682, because of the attempt 
of a few men to monopolize the Indian traffic in 

wm ^ M .J » ■ ■ 

1682] THE CAROLINAS 153 

ftirs. Then arose a difficulty with the Fundamental 
Constitutions, which the colonists had always re- 
fused to confirm by any act of their own parlia- 
ment. By the same vessel that brought Newe to 
the colony the proprietaries sent over a revised 
draught of the Fundamentals, with some slight ad- 
ditions which evidently were designed to encourage 
emigration of Dissenters from western England.* 
Before they could hear from the colonists regarding 
this draught they decided to revise the Fundament- 
als still further; and on August 17, 1682, sent over 
another draught, at the special request of the Scots 
and * * some other considerable men, ' ' who were already 
planning to emigrate to Carolina, and who declared 
that the articles contained too few guarantees 
against oppression by the governors and other 
officials of the colony.' 

The new constitution placed more power in the 
hands of the people and limited to a small extent 
the authority of the proprietaries ; but the colonists 
rejected these articles as they had the others. These 
repeated rejections irritated the proprietaries, who 
now declared that they would not permit the 
Constitutions to be **used again till the people were 
fit to enjoy them and till they petition for that 
which they now reject." ' 

From this time forward the proprietaries became 

* Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685, § 496. 

^ Ibid., §§807, 1780, and p. 510; 1689-1692, Jiii/. 

* Ibid., 1681-1685, §1780. 


more imperative. They charged the settlers with 
disregard of their interest and contempt of th^ 
orders, and were irritated by the unfriendly treat*- 
ment accorded Lord Cardross and his Scots, and 
by the failure of the Charles Town government to 
deliver certain cannon for the protection of the 
Scottish settlement (Stewart's Town) at Port 
Royal.* They changed the system of granting 
land by patent to granting by indenture, which 
required payment of quitjent in money;' they 
complained of the selling of Indians as slaves, which 
brought about war and interfered with trade and 
their profits; they rebuked Governor West sharply 
for acting against their orders, saying, "Pray, are 
you to govern the people or the people you?"* 
Their letters became so peremptory that West, 
appointed governor for the third time in 1684, 
resigned in despair, and in 1685 Morton for the 
second time was appointed to succeed him. 

Times had changed ; the days of Shaftesbury were 
gone ; the days of James II. and Jeffreys were come, 
and the colonists readily perceived the difference. 
When the colonial parliament met, November 19, 
1685, Governor Morton, carrying out the orders 
given him, declared that every one must swear 
allegiance to the new king, fidelity to the pro- 
prietaries, and acceptance of the Fundamentals. 

» Ca/. o/S/ate Pap., Co/.. 1685-1688, § 1163; 1689-1699,1 XI17. 

» Ibid., 1685-1688, i 639. 

» Ibid., 1685-1688, i 59: cf. ii 363, 364. 365. 

1687] THE CAROLINAS 155 

Twelve members refused to do this and withdrew, 
and next day were excluded from the parliament. 

In the mean time, Morton, who had fallen under 
the displeasure of the proprietaries, was dismissed, 
and in the summer of 1686 James Colleton, son of 
the old Sir John and an imworthy scion of the 
Colleton house, was commissioned in his stead, 
apparently for reasons connected with the attitude 
of the colonists towards the navigation acts. When 
George Mtischamp wa^ appointed king's collector 
of customs in Carolina in 1685, he was not well 
received by the colony. Reports of illegal trading 
came to the knowledge of the Lords of Trade, and 
were transmitted to the proprietaries, who warned 
Morton against suffering any ships to trade con- 
trary to law.* The matter gave them great con- 
cern, for already the Lords of Trade were recom- 
mending the annulment of all the proprietary 
and corporate charters, and the Carolina pro- 
prietaries were anxious to do everything in their 
power to prevent the prosecution of a writ of 
quo. warranto against theirs.' 

Colleton arrived in the colony late in the year 
1687; and soon after his arrival a committee was 
appointed to examine the Fundamentals, in the hope 
of suggesting such changes as would make possible 

» Cal, of StaU Pap., Col., 1685-1688, § 639; Journal of the 
Lords of Trade, VI., 97-98. The proprietaries disclaimed 
all responsibility, see Cal. of State Pap., Col., 168 5-1 688, § 141 7- 

" A^. C. Col. Records, I., 263; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1685- 
1688, |§ 767, 1417; Rivers, South Carolina, App., 393. 



an agreement with the proprietaries.* The work 
dragged on until February 14, 1688, when Colleton, 
in anger, produced the letter of the proprietaries 
stating that the Fundamentals of 1669 had no 
official standing. Thereupon a deadlock ensued ; the 
governor and council adhered to the orders from 
England, while the delegates of the people stood 
by their former decision not to recognize any other 
constitution than that of 1669. They went further 
and voted that the government ought to be con- 
ducted according to the charters and not the 
Fundamentals, and denied that any bill need 
necessarily pass the council before it was read in 
parliament.' Legislation stopped. The colony, 
already stirred to its depths by the Spanish inroad 
of 1686, by the controversy over illegal trading, 
and by the difficulties with privateers and pirates, 
and now exasperated by the attitude of the pro- 
prietaries, was almost on the eve of revolt. 

Colleton began to govern with a high hand. At 
the request of certain colonists he proclaimed martial 
law, and refused to call another parliament. Seth 
Sothell, who had become a proprietary by buying 
out Lord Clarendon's share, but for misgovemment 
had been banished from Albemarle by the people 
of that colony, came to Charles Tewn and claimed 
the governorship according to the terms of the 

' Oldmixon, in Carroll, Hist. Collections, II., 411, 412. 
» Abstract in Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1685-1688, § 196a. full 
text in Rivers, South Carolina, 423. 

1691] THE CAROLINAS 157 

Fundamental Constitutions. He was welcomed by 
the opposition party, and in December, 1690, after 
seizing the records, called a parliament (which in all 
probability was the first to meet since February, 
1688). In March, 1691, he convened another par- 
liament and obtained the passage of acts banish- 
ing Colleton and his friends.* 

The proprietaries refused to sanction such law- 
less proceedings. Having charged Sothell with dis- 
obedience of their orders, with seizure of their letters 
and deputations, with holding illegal parliaments, 
and with supporting acts offensive in themselves 
and illegally passed, they suspended him from the 
governorship on November 8, 1691, and appointed 
Philip Ludwell in his place. Although eleven years 
passed before the Ftmdamental Constitutions were 
officially abandoned, it is evident that they were 
already a dead letter, owing to the determination 
of the colonists not to receive them; that in many 
important particulars the authority of the pro- 
prietaries was strenuously resisted ; and that English 
practices and English customs, whether in govern- 
ment, parliamentary distribution, or forms of land 
tenure, in so far as they did not conform to the 
needs of the colonists or to their sense of fairness 
and equity, could not be enforced in the Carolinas. 

In the county of Albemarle in the northern 
part of the province similar issues were working 
themselves out in a rather more ttunultuous way. 

* Cal. of State Pap. Col., 1689-1692, {§ 1488-1490, 1535, 1539. 


Stephens was made governor in 1667, but for ten 
years we hear little of the life of the colony. The 
inhabitants were composed of wanderers from 
Virginia who had obtained lands under patent from 
Berkeley before 1663. In that year and the year 
following a large number of Quakers came into the 
province, forming an influential body among the 
inhabitants. Though the lands were fertile the 
settlement never had much encouragement from 
the proprietaries. It was not exactly neglected, 
but occupied a minor place in their thoughts. The 
people were poor, the assignments of land small, 
and the quit-rents high, though the conditions were 
somewhat modified by the proprietaries.* There 
was no clergyman in the colony in 1670, and laws 
passed in that year indicate the difficulties con- 
fronting a settlement without sufficient support, 
and isolated from the world outside.' Life was 
purely agricultural, the only export being furs and 
tobacco, shipped in vessels from New England, 
whose merchants seem, to the vexation of the pro- 
prietaries, to have monopolized their business. 

The proprietaries repeatedly urged the Albemarle 
colonists to open up negotiations with the southern 
settlement and to send their products directly to 
England instead of allowing them to fall into the 
hands of the New-Englamders. They also luged 
them to expand their settlement and to colomze 
not only the shores of the Pamlico but the valley 

* Ante. 139. * A^. C, Col Records, I., x83->(97. 

U— iiiii^ifc-Ii* 

1677] THE CAROLINAS 159 

of the Neuse as well. The colony showed little 
eagerness to please the proprietaries, and the latter 
could say in reply that "the neglect of these two 
[instructions] has been the cause that hitherto we 
have had no more regard for you as looking upon 
you as a people that neither understood your own 
nor regarded our interests." * 

Stephens was succeeded in 1670 by Peter Carteret, 
Sir George Carteret's deputy in the colony and 
president of the council. To him were sent the 
Fundamental Constitutions and a body of temporary 
laws and instructions defining the form the govern- 
ment should take until the Fundamentals could be 
put into practice.' But his government was not 
successful, for what reason it is not easy to determine. 
In all probability his connection with the Indian 
trade and the illicit trade with New England 
brought him into disfavor with the proprietaries." 
Carteret was dismissed, and in 1677 Eastchurch, 
speaker of the Albemarle assembly, who had gone 
to England to lay the matter before the proprieta- 
ries, was appointed in his stead ; but he appointed 
Miller, collector of customs, to act as governor in 
his place. 

Miller was hardly the man to meet the situation, 
and no sooner had he arrived than trouble broke 
out. Some hundred or more of the colonists, who 

» N. C. Col. Records, I.. 228. ' Ibid., 181-183. 

' The instructions of 1676 seem to show this. See ihid., 


were determined that they would not pay the 
penny a pound on all tobacco exported to the 
other colonies, rose against the government, and 
having imprisoned governor, president of the as- 
sembly, and all but one of the deputies, they usurped 
the power and controlled the colony for a year. 
While to personal grievances and questions of trade 
may be traced some of the causes of this movement, 
there can be little doubt, if one may judge from the 
Pasquotank appeal for a "free parliament," that 
poverty and dislike of misgovemment lay at the 
bottom of the popular support of the uprising. The 
matter was soon ended. Miller was charged with 
holding his office without legal authority and was 
ejected by the proprietaries. 

In the mean time, Sothell, already mentioned 
in connection with Charles Town, was appointed 
governor by the proprietaries. Having been capt- 
ured by Algerine pirates, he did not reach the 
colony till 1683, when he fotmd the condition of 
affairs hopelessly confused. The authority of the 
proprietaries availed little, land titles were doubtful, 
the question of pirates and privateers was becoming 
a burning one in the colony, and a feeling of unrest 
seemed prevalent among the colonists. 

Sothell only made matters worse, and was sharply 
called to accotmt by the proprietaries,* who were 
already bending to the storm of the quo warranto 

* N. C. Col, Records f I., 350-352; for charges against Sothell, 
see 368-371. 

i69i] THE CAROLINAS i6i 

inquiries. But the people saved them further 
trouble. Seizing Sothell, they banished him from 
the colony, and though he was one of the " true and 
absolute lords of the province," the proprietaries 
acquiesced in this act on the ground that he had 
acted contrary to the Fundamental Constitutions. 
They appointed Philip Ludwell governor, first of 
Albemarle, and in 1691 of the southern province 
also, and henceforth Albemarle was governed by 
a deputy sent from the southern colony. 

Few colonies could show a more consistent dis- 
content, more bitter party feeling and personal 
hostility than did Albemarle. Even more than its 
neighbor it suffered from foolish laws and injudicious 
instructions, as well as from bad governors. To the 
proprietaries and the Lords of Trade it must have 
seemed a hot-bed of bickering and discontent, yet, 
were the full truth known, as it cannot be because 
of lack of indisputable evidence, it might be seen that 
the discontent was due to the attempts of a body of 
poor though honest settlers to get the most out of 
the circumstances in which they were placed, despite 
the policy of the proprietaries and the self-seeking 
activities of their appointees. 

VOL. V. — XI 




ALMOST twentv vears passed after the conquest 
i of New Netherlund before tlie southern portion 
of the territory claimed by the Dutch was colonized 
by the English. The settlement of Pennsylvania 
was due to the deep interest already aroused among 
the members of the Society of Friends in the coloni- 
zation of the New World. In 1653 members of this 
religious body began to come to America, and at one 
time or another sought refuge in each of the colonies 
there established. They came first as missionaries, 
and in their outspoken defence of their faith roused 
against themselves the hostility of the New England 
Puritans, who had no intention of building up a 
home for people who differed in religious belief from 

In the years from 1653 to 1660 the Puritans 
banished some of the Qtiakers, imprisoned many, 
and hanged three — Robinson, Stevenson, and Mary 
Dyer. The commissioners of the New England 
Confederation recommended in 1656 that all Quakers 
should be kept out of the colonies, and the legislat- 



ures of Massax:husetts Bay, Plymouth, and Connecti- 
cut enacted laws to this effect. Only Rhode Island 
gave them a welcome: the assembly wrote a letter 
to the United Commissioners, declaring that freedom 
of conscience was '* the greatest happiness that men 
can possess in the world." But Long Island and 
New Amsterdam, following the example of Massachu- 
setts Bay, flogged and imprisoned the Quaker 
preachers. Only in Shelter Island, far removed 
from the populous towns of western Long Island, 
and existing for the time being independent of any 
higher jurisdiction, lived a small body of Quakers 
unmolested by the colonial authorities. 

After 1660 the ntimber of Quakers in America 
rapidly increased, owing to the persecutions that 
began in England soon after the outbreak of the 
Fifth Monarchy men in 1660.* The harrying of 
the Nonconformists that followed the Conventicle 
Acts of 1664 and 1670 fell with exceptional severity 
upon members of the Society of Friends, because 
of their practice of holding meetings at stated times 
and places, and because of their refusal to change 
their practice in order to avoid arrest and in- 
prisonment. Persecution followed them to Amer- 
ica, and efforts, less prolonged, but none the less 
determined, were made there to crush out the new 
religious body. In Maryland they were fined and 
imprisoned, not only because they held an un- 
welcome faith, but also because they refused to 

* Fox, Journal (cd. 1694), 337. 


bear arms and to take the oath that the colony 

Oppressed in Virginia, a body of Friends pushed 
southward into the wilderness and joined the colony 
at Albemarle; while in the north others left New 
England and settled at Shrewsbury in the region 
afterwards to be known as East New Jersey. Thus 
in Rhode Island, Shelter Island, New Jersey, Mary- 
land, Virginia, and Carolina, commimities of Quaker 
colonists existed, whose life was characterized by 
humility, simplicity, and agricultural thrift. George 
Fox, the founder of the society, made a noteworthy 
journey among them in 1672, visiting all the com- 
mtmities from Rhode Island to Carolina, holding 
meetings and encouraging his followers. His jour- 
nal gives a vivid picture of the extent of Quaker 
settlement in America before the appearance of 
William Penn as a promoter of Quaker coloniza- 

This situation was far from satisfactory to those 
interested in the future of Quaker settlement in 
America; the commimities were widely scattered 
and without tmity. Save in Rhode Island, where 
Quakers obtained control of the government from 
1673 to 1677 and furnished the governors and most 
of the deputies, they were without political in- 
fluence, and had to be content to dwell imder a 
government not of their own making. It became 
eminently desirable that a place should be found 

' Fox, Journal^ 362-383. 


where they could be free to live in peace and to 
erect a government of their own. 

As early as 1660 George Fox thought of purchas- 
ing land in America for a Quaker settlement, and 
made inquiries of Josiah Coale regarding a suitable 
territory in Maryland. The region suggested lay at 
the head of Chesapeake Bay along the Susquehan- 
na River, back to the Susquehanna fort. But the 
conditions were not favorable, and the project was 
given up.* Nothing more was done until after 
1666, when Penn became a member of the society 
and a large number of well-to-do and injfluential 
men became associated with the movement. To 
obtain territory in America was no easy matter, 
for the seaboard was already occupied, and an in- 
land region would not be favorable to commerce, 
which was likely to be the chief activity of the 

William Penn, the founder of Pennsylvania, was 
the son of Admiral Penn, a leading naval officer of 
his day and one of the commanders of the ex- 
pedition which captured Jamaica in 1655. He was 
brought up at Wanstead, in Essex, and matriculated 
at Oxford in 1660, when sixteen years of age. 
Even at that early date he was intimate with John 
Owen, the Puritan divine, and listened with sym- 
pathy to the discourses of Thomas Loe, the Quaker. 
When the admiral learned of his son's interest in 
Nonconformist ideas and preachings, he sent him 

* Coale to Fox, in Bowden, Hist, of Friends, I., 389, 390. 



off to the Continent, where young Penn entered into 
the gayeties of the French court, travelled in Italy, 
and a little later took service in the Dutch war, 
donning the armor which, in strange contradiction 
to Quaker principles, appears in the only authentic 
portrait that exists of the great Quaker leader. 
On his return to England he entered Lincoln's Inn 
to prepare himself for the profession of law; but 
in 1666, while visiting his father's estate in Ireland, 
he met Thomas Loe at Cork and was converted 
to Quakerism. His father, angry at this thwart- 
ing of his plans for Penn's future career, turned 
against him, but before his own death in 1670 he 
became reconciled with his son and aided him 
when with other Quakers he was persecuted for his 

Admiral Penn left to his son what was then con- 
sidered the large income of £1500 a year; * yet tow- 
ards the end of the decade Penn appears to have 
been financially embarrassed.* Admiral Penn had 
left an important claim upon the king, consisting 
of arrears of pay and of money which had been 
advanced from time to time to supply the navy. 
This debt was repudiated in 1672 by the Stop of the 
Exchequer, and the royal promise of interest was 
unfulfilled till 1677, and then was paid only in part. 
This loss of interest for five years raised Penn's 
claim from £11,000 to £16,000, and, taken in 

* Memorials of Sir William Penn, II., 560,570, 571,617-619. 
' Preamble to petition, Hazard, Annals, 474. 


conjunction with losses in Ireland, reduced very 
materially the value of Penn's estate. It was at 
this time, therefore, that Penn determined tor peti- 
tion the king for a grant of land in America. 

The thought was not new to him. Before he be- 
came a Quaker he had been eager to discover a region 
where he might experiment with certain theories of 
government which he had begun to formulate as 
early as 166 1 at Oxford. That he was familiar with 
the writings of More and Harrington we may well 
believe ; that he was a friend of Henry and Algernon 
Sydney we know ; and that he was an observer of 
"mischiefs in government" and desired **to settle 
one" of his own his letters tell us.* But it was 
not until after 1673 ^hat he began seriously to 
consider the plan of colonization, and, as we have 
already seen, not until 1674 that he joined with 
others of his faith in attempting to obtain an inter- 
est in the Jerseys. 

Just when Penn first formed the plan of building 
up a colony of his own in America we do not know. 
As a favorite in the royal household, a friend of the 
duke of York, and intimate with many of the men 
interested in colonization in America, he must 
early have become aware that the territory taken 
from the Dutch on the west side of the Delaware was 
desirable. Nicolls, in his letters to the duke, to 
Clarendon, and to Bennett, later Lord Arlington, 
called attention to the region, and recommended it 

* Penn, in Pa. Hist. Soc., Memoirs, I., aio, an. 


as a substitute for what he considered the duke's 
unfortunate grant of East New Jersey to Carteret.* 

Pemn's New Jersey venture must have made 
him familiar with the region, and in the years from 
1676 to 1680 he was trying to obtain the removal 
of the five per cent, tax which Andros, in the name 
of the duke of York, imposed on all goods entering 
the Delaware, and in his remonstrances displayed 
thorough knowledge of the legal questions in- 
volved ; * while his description of the region in his 
later accoimt of his province, issued before he left 
England, shows a like knowledge of the ground.* 
Penn differed from the other proprietaries in that 
he made profit a subordinate motive. He wished 
to found a colony for his fellow - Quakers, to try 
a new and holy experiment in government, and in 
person to build up the new settlement. Since the 
days of the Massachusetts Bay colony there had 
been among the various proprietaries and patentees 
no examples of motives such as these. 

In June, 1680, Penn petitioned the king to 
grant him ** letters-patent for a tract of land in 
America lying north of Maryland, on the east 
bounded by the Delaware River, on the west limited 
as Maryland, and northward to extend as far as 
plantable." * Penn did not ask for the territory 

* N. J. Archives, I., 48, 55, 56; Clarendon Papers, 115. 
' Pa. Magazine, V., 323-325. 

■ Hazard, Annals, 509, 510. 

* Journal of the Lords of Trade, III., 173; Hazard, Annals, 



as payment for the debt, but rather that he might 
thereby restore his fortunes, believing that by a 
profitable conduct of the plantation he would be 
able to meet financial indebtedness incurred in 
consequence of his Irish losses and the repudiation 
of the amount owed him by the king. In a letter 
written in 1689 he said, "Had I pressed my own 
debts with King James, that his brother owed me, 
there had been sixteen thousand pounds." Evident- 
ly he still nominally claimed the debt, of which he 
was willing to remit the whole or a part.* The grant 
was to be made in consideration of the circum- 
stances in which the debt had placed him, not in 
settlement of the debt itself. 

The petition which was sent to the king was 
handed over to the Lords of Trade, and received 
by them June 14, 1680. It does not appear that in 
Penn's case the committee hesitated to increase 
the ntimber of proprieties in America, a fact due 
imdoubtedly to the influence of Penn at court and 
his friendship with Charles II. and the duke of 
York. So far as the minutes of its deliberations 
show, the conmiittee in Penn's case was concerned 
chiefly with the difficulty of making the grant with- 
out detriment to the other proprietaries, the duke 
of York on the northeast and Lord Baltimore on 
the south. 

The discussion showed great uncertainty as to 

* The Friend, VIL, 67; Friends* Review, I. 33, 34; Journal 
of the Lords of Trade, IIL, 174; Pa. Magazine, VI., 313. 


the position of the fortieth parallel, which was fixed 
upon as Penn's southern boundary. The duke 
cared nothing for the boundaries north and west, 
but he wished to retain the New Castle colony. 
His agent, Sir John Werden, at once protested 
against the inclusion of that settlement, and Penn 
was required by the committee to reach an agree- 
ment with the duke privately on this point.* 
Werden proposed a southern line twenty or thirty 
miles north of New Castle, but Penn, who wisnea to 
control as much of the Delaware as possible, asked 
that the distance be reduced to twelve miles.* 
Sir John Werden dismissed the matter by saying, 
* * I confess I do not understand why it is precisely 
necessary to insist on just such a ntmiber of miles, 
more or less, in a cotmtry of which we know so 
little.*'* Dutch and Burke, the agents (rf Baltimore, 
in their statement to the committee, requested 
that the line be drawn north of Susquehanna fort 
(which was supposed to mark the fortie th para llel), 
and to nm thence eastward to the Delaware. 
Penn agreed to this line, and we are told that ** Sir 
John Werden and my Lord Baltimore's agent at- 
tended my Lord Chief -Justice North at his chamber, 
and upon laying before his lordship their respective 
interests and both of them acquiescing in the botmds 

* Col. of State Pap., Col,, 1677-1680, §§ 1390, 1403; Hazard, 
Annals, 475, 476. 

' Hazard, Annals, 482, 483; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1677-1680, 
{{ 1404, 1409, 1544. 1599- 

■ Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1677-1680, { 1603. 


as they stand now described, the)'' were presented to 
the committee and agreed upon by their lordships." * 
An obstacles to the issue of the patent having thtis 
been removed, the committee reported favorably to 
the king, and the charter was signed March 4, 1681. 

The territory thus granted was bounded on the. 
east by the Delaware River and by a line drawn 
from the head of that river to the forty -thirdj 
degree of northern latitude; on the south by a 
semicircle whose periphery lay twelve miles distant 
from New Castle north and northwest, intersecting 
with the fortieth parallel, along which the boundary- 
line ran through five degrees of longitude. These 
boundaries involved two serious diffictilties that be- 
came the subject of long and painful controversies. 

In the first place, the critical phrase ** three and 
fortieth degree of northern latitude" (elsewhere in 
the same charter called the ** beginning of the three 
and fortieth degree") might mean either the line 
known as the forty-third degree or the zone be- 
tween the forty-second and forty-third degrees. 
If the former meaning were accepted, as Penn after- 
wards insisted and Governor Dongan thought would 
be the case,* then Penn's grant would have extended 
north of Albany and have controlled the Indian 
trade of the Mohawk valley; and the five degrees 
westward would have given to him a part of Lake 

* "Letter to Mr. Lewen at New York concerning Mr. Pen's 
Patent," Egerton A/SS., in British Museum, 2395, ff. 593, 594. 

* N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 392, 394. 


Erie and a share of the trade with Canada. By the 
latter interpretation, which was accepted a century 
later, the northern line of Pennsylvania would coin- 
cide with the forty-second degree or parallel.* 

On the south the question was even more per- 
plexing. Baltimore was entitled to territory ex- 
tending as far north as the fortieth parallel, and 
possessed a legal title to the region covering the 
Dutch and Swedish settlements on the west bank 
of the Delaware. In the charter this territory was 
spoken of as "hitherto tmcultivated," and the 
question was raised as to whether this statement 
did not exclude such portions as had been acttially 
settled since 1632. Baltimore had never attempted 
to exercise jurisdiction over these northern settle- 
ments, which since 1664 had been imder the govern- 
ment of the duke of York. Penn's charter conftised 
matters still further, for the twelve-mile circle 
around New Castle did not intersect the fortieth 
parallel by at least eight miles. A settlement of 
the difficulty between Penn and Baltimore, based 
on a literal interpretation of the two charters, was 
manifestly out of the question. 

The fault lies in the first instance with those who 
draughted Penn's charter. Penn was seeking ports, 
not land, because his province had no ocean front, 
a fact that is evident from his offer in 1683 to buy of 
Baltimore control of the Susquehanna River to its 

' Regents' Commission, Report on iJie New York and Pennsyl' 
vania Boundary ( 1 886) . 


mouth in order to gain an outlet on the Chesa- 
peake. Baltimore, though possessing the whole of 
the Chesapeake and having an outlet to the ocean 
through the Potomac, declined Penn's offer.* Penn 
was justified in attempting to save his capital, 
Philadelphia, which was building before the con- 
troversy began, and in seeking to obtain a water- 
way for the commerce he planned to develop. Had 
all of Baltimore's claims been allowed, the value of 
Penn's grant would have been destroyed, whereas 
the province of Maryland as it then existed would 
have profited little, for Baltimore had never con- 
cerned himself with the lands northeast of Chesa- 
peake Bay. 

The question of the fortieth parallel and of the 
Chesapeake port was not the only cause of the long 
quarrel that followed. Penn became anxious re- 
garding his control of Delaware Bay, and in 168 1 
applied to the duke of York for a grant of New 
Castle, the islands of the Delaware, and eventually 
for all the territory on the right bank of the Delaware 
to its mouth.* The duke demurred at first, but 
eventually yielded, and in August, 1682, deeded 
both New Castle and the lower territory to Penn.* 
But the duke's title was not itself clear, inasmuch 
as he had never received from the kmg any territory 

* Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685, {{ 356, 444; Pa. Maga- 
zine, VI., 423. 

' Nicolls fiist suggested this in N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., 
III., 70, 290. ■ Hazard, Annals, 587-593. 


on the west side of the Delaware, and exercised 
jurisdiction over Upland and New Castle rather 
by sufferance than by any legal warrant. It was 
necessary, therefore, that the duke of York get 
a release from the king. 

Before this release was signed, Baltimore, in 
consternation at this further encroachment on his 
charter limits, appealed to the Lords of Trade, 
praying for an investigation.* Penn and the 
duke of York's coimsel insisted that the Delaware 
water-front had never been possessed by Lord 
Baltimore; that the land had been originally in- 
habited by Dutch and Swedes, and that the grant 
to Baltimore had been only of lands not inhabited 
by Christians. They also insisted that all lands 
occupied by the Dutch had been surrendered to 
the king in 1664, and that such as had not been 
granted away since that time had remained in the 
king's possession. 

For a year and a half the matter remained un- 
decided, the committee postponing consideration of 
it, probably because of the anticipated quo warranto 
proceedings against Lord Baltimore's charter. When 
Penn showed that the question was, as he put it, 
one of ** title to soil and not of power," the lords took 
up the matter in earnest, and on October 17, 1685, 
reached a first decision that the "tract of land in 
dispute did not belong to Lord Baltimore." Shortly 

* Journal of the Lords of Trade, IV., 155, 156; A^ Y. Docs. 
R0I. to Col, Hist., III., 339, 340. 



afterwards the committee modified this statement in 
a final decision, and in view of the imcertainty of the 
boundary divided the territory into equal parts by 
a north and south line from the New Castle circle 
to a point between the thirty-eighth and thirty- 
ninth parallels. This line became the basis of 
the final western boundary of the state of Dela- 
ware, and by this decision Baltimore retained 
possession of a large part of the "Eastern Shore." * 
He refused, however, to accept the decision of the 
committee and reopened the controversy in 1694; 
even as late as 1755 ^h® proprietary of Maryland 
was still claiming the three lower counties.* 

By the charter of 1681 Penn and his heirs became 
the true and absolute lords of a province or seignory, 
with rights and privileges similar to those granted 
to other proprietaries. The province was called 
Pennsylvania, though Penn expressly endeavored 
to have it called New Wales, and that failing, 
Sylvania. Secretary Blathwayt, a Welshman, re- 
fused to have it called New Wales ; the king would 
not interfere; and though Penn offered the under- 
secretaries twenty guineas, they would not alter the 
name which had been inserted in the charter in 
honor of the admiral.* This province was to be 
held by Penn in free and coxmrion socage — that is, 

* Journal of the Lords of Trade, V., 116, 179, 180, 188, 198, 
Z99, 307, 308, 311, 225, 326. 

* Cahert Papers (Md. Hist. Soc., Fund Publication, No. 34), 

■ Letter from Penn, in Pa. Hist. Soc., Memoirs, I., 202-309. 


by fealty and a fixed rent of two beaver skins. 
The proprietary was to make laws with the advice 
and consent of his freemen, though in his hands lay 
the execution of the laws and the issue of occasional 
ordinances. He could, furthermore, appoint judges 
and magistrates, remit, release, and pardon, and erect 
towns, boroughs, and manors. 
^ The fact that the charter was the last save one of 
the great proprietary patents gave 'the king and 
his council opportunity to profit by experience, 
and to hedge the new proprietary in by limitations 
unknown to the earlier documents. It was a 
witness to Penn's influence that at this time such 
a charter should have been issued at all. Penn was 
required, as were some of the other proprietaries, to 
send all laws to England for approval, though if 
the Privy Council did not act upon them within 
six months after their receipt they were to be valid. 
He was given no control over cases of treason or 
wilful and malicious mixrder. His ordinances were 
under no circumstances to bind any one or to take 
away the rights of any one to life, limbs, goods, or 
chattels; while the people of the province were to 
have full right to appeal to the king in council. 
He was to maintain an agent in England, to observe 
the navigation acts and all customs regulations, and 
to have no correspondence with other sovereigns or 
states who were at war with the king of England. 
Especial stress was laid upon the observance of the 
navigation acts, and a breach of them carried a 


liability to forfeiture of the government. Even 
Penn could not be allowed to do anything that 
would diminish the revenues of the crown. April 
2, 1 68 1, the king announced to Lord Baltimore and 
the inhabitants and planters already in the province 
that the charter had been issued.* 

Having received his charter, Penn immediately 
set about organizing his colony. After long waiting 
he had obtained an opportimity of giving practi- 
cal shape to his ideas upon government. **Thou 
mayst conmiunicate to friends," he wrote Robert 
Turner, "and expect shortly my proposals; 'tis a 
clear and just thing, and my God that has given it 
me through many difficulties will, I believe, bless 
and make it the seed of a nation. I shall have a 
tender care to the government that it be well laid 
at first." ' He began at once to draught an account 
of the province for the information of those who 
might desire to emigrate. This pamphlet, which 
presented the advantages of the colony and out- 
lined very briefly *' the privileges and powers neces- 
sary ^^he well-governing thereof," ' was a treatise 
not i^^on Pennsylvania, but also on the advan- 
tages of colonies in general; and it was circulated 
widely among those who would be likely to respond 
to it notjr only in England but in Ireland, Wales, 

' Cat. of State Pap., Col., 1661-1685, §§ 62, 63; Hazard, 
Annals, 502. ' Pa. Hist. Soc., Memoirs, I., 209. 

• Hazard, Annals, 505-513; Winsor, Narr. and Crit. Hist.. 
III., 496. 

VOL ▼ — 19 


Hollaiid, and Gennany. It seems to have had 
considerable influence in inducing emigraticm from 
cotmtries where Penn had already travelled and 
to which he had written letters in anticipation 
of the opportunity that had now come. Many 
Friends in Ireland and Wales were ready to come 
to America; Mennonites and other religious bodies 
in Germany looked favorably on the scheme; 
and Penn, greatly encouraged by the welcome his 
pamphlet received, looked forward with confident 
anticipation to a rapid colonization of his province. 
In the mean time, he was busily engaged in draw- 
ing up another document, an agreement between 
himself and those who were to be the pmx:hasers of 
his lands. He began by selling shares to those 
who wished to buy five thousand acres for a price 
of £100, with an annual quit-rent of fifty shillings 
or a commutation of all quit-rent for £20 in cash.* 
To regulate these purchases and to arrange for 
distributing land to those who could not afford to 
buy, he issued, July 11, 1681, his body of Con- 
ditions and Concessions.* These proposaj^dealt 
chiefly with the division and settleme^HA his 
province and laid down certain regulations l^cover 
all dealings with the Indians. The Concessions were 
not intended to define the particular form of govern- 

* Qajrpoole's Letter-Book, Pa. Magazine, X., 190, 191; 
letters from Penn to James Harrison, in Hazard, Annals, 
522, 523, 538; Pa. Archives, ist series, I., 39-46. 

•Hazard, Annals, 516-520; Proud, Hist, of Pennsylvania, 
II., App.; Poore, Constitutions, 15 16. 


ment. Penn's purpose in this regard was set forth 
in a letter to the people in Pennsylvania which he 
wrote in 1681. ** You shall be governed," he said, - 
**by laws of your own making, and live a free and, / 
if you will, a sober and industrious people. I shall 
not usurp the right of any or oppress his person. 
Whatever sober and free men can reasonably desire 
for the security and improvement of their own* 
happiness I shall heartily comply with." * 

In April, 1 68 1, Penn commissioned his cousin, 
William Markham, to go out at once as deputy 
governor, promising to follow himself in five months' 
time, a promise that he was unable to fulfil. Mark- 
ham was given a body of instructions, and authority 
to call a council to receive the allegiance of the 
people in the territory, to settle the boundaries 
with Baltimore, to survey and distribute lands, 
to keep the peace and punish vice, and to issue 
ordinances, but not to summon an assembly.' 
He arrived in America in June, probably touched 
first at Boston, then at New York, where Brockholls 

his authority, and afterwards sailed for 
the^^Hware. Up the river, beyond the head of 
the olty', lay New Castle, at that time still retained 
under the jurisdiction of the duke of York. Farther 
on was Upland, the first town in Penn's jurisdiction, 
occupied largely by Swedes and Dutch; while ex- 
tending to the mouth of the Schuylkill were settle- 
ments of Dutch and Swedish -farmers, containing 

* Hazard, Annals, 502. • Ibid., 503, 504. 


also a few Englishmen who had crossed over from 
Fenwick's colony and Burlington in West New 
Jersey. Since 1664 these people had been under 
the jurisdiction of the duke of York's laws, with a 
seat of justice at Upland. 

Thither Markham went with his letter from Penn 
and his proclamation from Brockholls, and received 
the allegiance of the inhabitants. Having reor- 
ganized the court, and established the authority 
of the proprietary there,* he crossed in August to 
the head of the Chesapeake and took the long sail 
south to Maryland, hoping to arrange the boundary 
difficulty with Lord Baltimore; but he returned 
to Upland by the way he had come, having ac- 
complished nothing.* 

While Markham was at St. Mary's, three men — 
Crispin, Bezar, and Allen— were commissioned by 
Penn to go to America with the first body of colo- 
nists and to assist Markham in the work of laying 
out the colony. They were instructed to choose a 
site for a town where, as Penn said, "it is most 
navigable, dry, and healthy — that is, whflMi most 
ships may best ride, of deepest draught (9 water, 
if possible to load or unload at the bank or key- 
side, without boating or lightering of it"; to lay 
out ten thousand acres for the town, and to arrange 
that every purchaser should have one htmdred of 
his five thousand acres within this area. Minute 

^ Records of Upland, 195. 196; Hazard, AntuUs, 525, 526. 
' Pa. Magazine, VL, 415, 416. 


directions were given regarding the laying out of 
streets, the location of houses, each "in the middle 
of its plat, that it may be a green country town, 
which will never be burned and always be whole- 
some," and particularly regarding the treatment 
of the Indians, to whom a very friendly letter was 
sent.* These instructions were afterwards modi- 
fied by Penn, who enlarged the original plat and 
reduced the hundred -acre share within the city 
to a small home lot. In April, 1682, he sent out 
Thomas Holme in the Amity to be surveyor-general. 
Under the latter's guidance the city of Philadelphia 
was laid out, lots were assigned to purchasers, and 
amid much confusion the erecting of a stately town 
was begun. The sjmametry and regularity of Phil- 
adelphia are due to the plan, but little changed, 
which Holme made at this time.* 

While others were thus shaping the settlement in 
America, Penn himself was busy promoting the 
tmdertaking in England and completing the or- 
ganization of the trade and government of his 
colony. First he granted a charter to a trading 
and land company known as the Free Society of 
Traders. To this body, of which a majority of 
the members were Quakers, he gave elaborate 
trading privileges, twenty thousand acres of land, 
and the right to send three representatives to 
the provincial assembly. Penn had already refused 

* Hazard, Annals, 527-533. 

' Pa, Magazine, XIX., 421, 422. 


a very advantageous offer from a trader in Maryland 
for a monopoly of the Indian trade in the province.* 
** I did refuse a great temptation last second day," 
he wrote, to Ttimer, "which was ;£6ooo, . . . but 
... I would not . . . defile what came to me 
clean.'** It would have been for him financially 
better had he accepted the offer, for the Free 
Society of Traders never prospered. It early came 
into conflict with the colonial authorities, and, 
though successful in disposing of its goods, was 
unsuccessful in collecting its debts. As its mem- 
bers were Quakers, who were averse to law-suits, 
the company soon fotmd itself without credit or 

As yet^Penn had constructed no frame of govern- 
ment such as he was entitled to issue under the 
terms of his charter, but he had clearly in mind the 
chief principles of the government that he desired to 
establish, and had already given expression to his 
plan in the noble body of Concessions under which 
the West New Jersey settlers were at this time liv- 
ing. In draughting the government that he wished 
to establish in Pennsylvania he refused to defend 
any particular form, democratic or other. "The 
age is too nice and difficult for it," he said, "there 
being nothing the wits of men are more busy and 

* Clajrpoole's Letter-Book, ibid., X., 189. 
' Pa. Hist. Soc, Memoirs, I., 212. 

• Claypoole's Letter-Book, Pa. Magazine, X., 411; Baldwin, 
Amer. Hist. Review, VIIL, 453-456. 


divided upon. I choose to solve the controversy 
with this small distinction: any government is free 
to the people under it, whatever be the frame, 
where the laws rule and the people are a party to 
those laws, and more than this is tyranny, oligarchy, 
or confusion. . . . Let men be good and the govern- 
ment cannot be bad ; if it be ill they will cure it. 
But if m?n be bad, let the government be ever so 
good, they will endeavor to warp and spoil it to 
their own turn." 

Whatever the form, there was to Penn but one 
great end of government — namely, **to support' 
power in reverence with the people, and to secure 
i the people from the abuse of power, that they may 
>^ be free by their just obedience, and the magistrates 
I honorable for their just administration; for liberty 
' without obedience is confusion and obedience with- 
!, out liberty is slavery." * 

That Penn reaches in these dicta a very high level 
of political principles is evident when we compare 
his ideals with those of other men of his day. 
Many were, as he sajrs, seeking for the solution 
of the great problem of government, but no one 
struck out higher truths than these. Penn is- 
sued his scheme of government with fear and un- 
certainty, but he enunciated the principles on 
which it was based without hesitation or ques- 

Penn's Frame of Government bears the date April 

^ Preface to the Frame of Government. 


25^ 1682/ aad was the first coostztatioa for the 
colony ot Petmsyfvama. Tbe government estab- 
lished was in aR essential partknlaxs Sfmilar to those 
of the other coLomes. Tbere were a governor and a 
deputy govemc'r. a provincial coandl and an as- 
sembly, both eLected by the people: and the powers 
of execntzve ziid Legislature were carefolly and 
minutely defined. Appended to the Frame of Gov- 
ernment, and bearing date May 5, were certain 
'* laws agreed upon in EnglanLi/* which deal with the 
liberties of the individual, and therefore partake of 
the character of a bill of r^hts. The government 
thus established is noteworthy for the importance 
given to the pro\-incial council, an elective body 
of seventy-two members with power to prepare bills 
and adjourn the assembly, and for the minor position 
occupied by the governor, who, having no powers 
independent of the cotmcil, was more or less of a 

• Proud, Hist, of Pennsylvania, II., App.; Hazard, Annals, 
561-568; Poore, Constitutions, 15 18; Sh^herd, Proprietary 
Government in Pennsylvania, 235-243. 




PENN was now ready to sail to America, where 
his city was ahready founded and his colony 
was awaiting his coming. September 2, 1682, 
the London Gazette reported that "two days since 
sailed out of the Downs three ships botmd for 
Pensilvania on board of which was Mr. Pen-t^with 
a great many Quakers who go to settle there." * 
After he had sailed, many malicious rumors were 
circulated in England, some stating that he had 
become a Jesuit, others that he was dead. These 
reports caused him considerable uneasiness and 
pain. "I am still alive," he wrote from America 
to the Free Society of Traders, "and no Jesuit, and I 
thank God very well." 

The voyage to America required more than six 
weeks and proved very distressing, owing to the 
outbreak of small-pox on board the Welcome, and the 
death of nearly one-third of the passengers. On 
October 27, the vessel lay off New Castle. "As 
they sailed up the river they received visits and 

* Pa. Magazine, VI., 175. 



invitations from the inhabitants, the people being 
joyful to see him, both Swedes, Dutch, and English 
coming up to New Castle. They received and enter- 
tained him with great expressions of joy after their 
sort." * He summoned the people of New Castle, 
and in taking possession addressed them regarding 
his object in coming to America and the govern- 
ment that he proposed to establish. The next day 
(October 29, O.S., November 8, N.S.) he went to 
Upland, which, according to tradition,' he renamed 
Chester, and he there entered for the first time upon 
the soil of Pennsylvania. 

Penn now instructed the sheriffs to issue writs 
summoning the people to the polls to elect delegates 
to an assembly that was to meet December 4. The 
assembly passed a series of important measures 
that laid broadly and deeply the constitutional 
foundations of the colony. The first measure 
formally annexed New Castle and the lower terri- 
tories to Pennsylvania; a second naturalized the 
Swedes and other foreigners who had come within 
the jurisdiction of Penn's government; a third, 
known as the Great Law, accepted the laws that 
had been agreed upon in England, and added a 
number of others. It stands as the exponent of 
Penn's ideas and principles and inaugurated the 
Holy Experiment. It provided for liberty of con- 
science, for lofty standards of moral and religious 

• Penn to Philip Ford, Pa. Magazine, VI., 179. 
' Clarkson, Life of Penn, I., 259. 


life, and for cap^ital punishment in but two ca^s, 
murder and treason, a noteworthy clause when one 
remembers the two hundred capital crimes in 
England at this time. The entire bodj^pf sixty- 
nine capitularies is characterized by temperance, 
love, and justice. The Agreement of West New 
Jersey and the Great Law of Pennsylvania emanate 
from the same source. Well might Penn say that 
"such an assembly for Love, Unity, and Concord 
scarcely ever was known in and about outward 
things in those parts." * 

Penn went from Chester to Philadelphia and 
stepped ashore at the primitive wharf that stood 
in front of the Blue Anchor tavern, probably erected 
some years before for the people of New Castle and 
others on the river. During the winter and spring 
that followed he was busy laying the material 
foimdations of the colony. Shortly after landing 
he sent two persons to confer with Lord Baltimore 
about the boundaries, and himself undertook a trip 
to Maryland in December,* which was the first of a 
series of extended and painful interviews between 
the two proprietaries. He journeyed to New York 
to pay his respects to the governor of the colony 
of the duke of York, and in March, 1683, he visited 
East New Jersey and sat for five days as a pro- 

* Pa. Magazine, VI., 180; Great Law, in Hazard, Annals, 

» Penn to the Lords of trade. Cat. of State Pap,, Col., 1681- 
1685, § 1179. 


prietary in the cotmcil of the deputy governor, 
Rudyard/ At home he was busy with the new 
city and in making a tour of his own province. He 
watched with great care the building of Philadel- 
phia, and during the first year after his landing saw 
it grow to be a town of ** four-score houses and cot- 
tages, where merchants and handicrafts are follow- 
ing their vocations as fast as they can, while the 
cotmtrymen are close at their farms." *'With the 
help of God," he wrote to Lord Sunderland, '*I will 
show a province in seven years equal to her neigh- 
bors of forty years' planting."* Of the journey 
that he made throughout the province no other evi- 
dence remains than the long letter which he wrote 
to the Free Society of Traders describing the col- 
ony. He declared that he was fully satisfied with 
the country, although the labor of settlement was 
arduous, and vexing problems were constantly aris- 

With the Indians from the first his relations were 
governed by motives of the highest character. He 
had already made known the policy that he pro- 
posed to follow in his Conditions and Concessions, 
and sent over several letters to be read to the 
Indians, expressing his desire for their friendship 
and good-will. During his first year he held many 

* N. J. Archives, XIII., 6, 8, 11, 13, 15. 

' Pa. Hist. Soc., Memoirs, II., 246. Descriptions of the 
province, in (1682), Pa. Magazine, XIII., 227; (1685) ibid., 
IX., 64-81, and Pa. Hist. Soc, Memoirs, I., 446. 

• Clarkson, Life of Penn, I., 292-315. 


meetings with them and evidently impressed upon 
them, as he impressed upon all purchasers of land 
in the province, his desire for perfect amity and 
justice in the relations between the white and the 
red man. He planned a kind of arbitration tri- 
bunal, consisting of six planters and six natives, to 
settle all differences, and there is reason to believe 
that some such tribunal was actually set up. In 
Jime, 1683, he made a great treaty with the Indians, 
probably at Shackamaxon, now Kensington, under 
an elm, that long afterwards bore the name of the 
* * Treaty Elm. ' ' This scene has gained the attention 
of the poet and the artist, and has long stood as 
s)anbolic of a noble purpose successfully carried out. 
Meanwhile the number of settlers in the province 
was rapidly increasing. Before 1682 a thousand 
people were established in the region, and between 
1682 and 1685 the number was increased to more 
than eight thousand. First on the ground after 
the Swedes, Dutch, and Finns were the Welsh 
Quakers from Merionethshire, who arrived in Au- 
gust, 1682, and settled on the '* Welsh Tract," west 
of Philadelphia.* In October, 1683, came a com- 
pany of Mennonites from Crefeld, on the Rhine, 
led by their pastor, Pastorius, who took up their 
divisions of land northwest of Philadelphia, naming 
their settlement German Town. It is noteworthy 
that five years later four of this company drew 
up a protest which they sent to the Friends meeting 

* Glenn, Merion in the Welsh Tract, 


against the holding of slaves. "And those who 
steal or rob men and those who buy or purchase 
them, are they not all alicke? Here is liberty of 
conscience, which is right and reasonable, here ought 
to be lickewise liberty of ye body, except of evil 
doers, wch is another case. But to bring men 
hither or to robb and sell them against their will we 
stand against." * Other race elements were French, 
Danes, Scots, Irish, forming a strangely cosmopolitan 
organization ; yet all lived like the people of one 
country, prosperous and contented. 

Pennsylvania continued to receive settlers more 
rapidly than any other colony in America at this 
time, and only about half of these were Englishmen. 
Philadelphia was pleasantly situated; its houses, 
frequently three stories high, were large and well 
built, having good cellars and in some cases bal- 
conies. Its fertility was such that its streets were 
named **from things that spontaneously'* grew in 
the country. Markets were held twice a week and 
fairs twice a year; a good meal could be had for 
sixpence; hours for work and meals for laborers 
were indicated by the ringing of a bell ; and no one 
was allowed at a public-house at night who was not 
a lodger. The drink was chiefly beer and a punch 
made of rum and water; — so Penn wrote in 1685.* 
At that time three counties — Philadelphia, Bucks, 
and Chester — had been laid out and fifty townships 

' Text in Pa. Magazine, IV., 1-41. Cf. with the Rhode Island 
law, R. I. Col. Records, I., 243. * Pa, Magazine, IX., 65. 


settled. A weekly post was established,* a school 
was opened,* and a printing-press was set up. 

Trade began with the neighboring colonies and 
with the West Indies, ships and wharves were 
built, and Philadelphia entered on her career as a 
prosperous commercial city. No town on the co- 
lonial seaboard had leaped into prominence with 
such rapidity as had this Quaker community. It 
possessed a tannery, saw-mill, brick kiln, and a glass- 
house, erected for the Free Society ; • mills of other 
kinds were built, Irish Quakers introduced the 
manufacture of linen; and flour, pipe-staves, and 
horses began to be exported. So rapidly did the 
settlement grow that Penn could write in 1684, 
"I have led the greatest colony into America that 
ever any man did upon a private credit, and the 
most prosperous beginnings that ever were in it 
are to be found among us." * To his own sagacity 
and energy this result must be in large part ascribed. 

Notwithstanding this rapid growth, provisions of 
the Frame of Government touching council and 
assembly were drawn on too large a scale. A 
council of seventy-two members, in addition to a 
general assembly of two hundred members, all 
elected, proved to be beyond the resources of the 
colony. In December, 1682, Penn agreed with 

' Proud, Hist, of Pennsylvania^ I., 345. 

• Pemberton MSS., quoted in Watson, Annals, 626. 
■ Penn in Clarkson, Life of Penn, I., 314, § 33. 

* Penn in Pa. Hist. Soc, Memoirs, I., 448, 449. 


Markham that the seventy - two persons chosen 
by the six counties should suffice — eighteen for the 
council and fifty -four for the assembly.* This 
arrangement was carried out by the council in 
March, 1683, and when a member expressed fear 
lest this alteration should injure their other privileges 
under the charter, Penn replied that the assembly 
might amend, alter, or add for the public good, and 
that he was ready to settle such foundations as 
might be for their happiness and the good of their 
posterities, according to the powers vested in him.' 

Penn's desire to meet the wishes of the people 
appears not to have pleased his wealthier associates, 
notably those connected with the Free Society, 
many of whom were large landholders in the colony 
and probably expected as members of the council 
to play a prominent part in government. The 
president of the society, Nicholas Moore, was 
charged with having said in a public -house that 
governor and council had broken the charter and 
deserved to be impeached for treason. For this 
rash comment he was summoned before the council, 
and though he defended himself by saying that he 
had rather raised the question than asserted the 
fact, he was reprimanded and told that his discourse 
was unreasonable and impudent.' 

' Pa. Magazine, Yl., 466, 467; see Hazard, Annals , 603, 604; 
and British Musetixn, Additional MSS., 35909, f. 2. 
^ Pa. Col. Records (1838), I., 2; (1852), I., 57, 58. 
»/Wd., 2, 3 (59). 

1 683] PENNSYLVANIA 193 

In the mean time, the fifty-four members who had 
been empowered by the freemen to act as an as- 
sembly, withdrew from the council and organized a 
lower house with Thomas Wynne as speaker. They 
took up the whole question of their rights under 
the charter, and after long debate and a confer- 
ence with the council passed an Act of Settlement,* 
legalizing the change just made in the constitution 
of the legislature. This act was only a temporary 
arrangement, and Penn asked the assembly whether 
it would have the old charter or a new one. The 
assembly said that it would have a new one,' 
and during the ensuing two weeks the governor and 
the houses were busy draughting the new frame. 
On April 8, 1683, ** the Great Charter of the province 
was read, signed, sealed, and delivered by the 
governor to the inhabitants and received by the 
hands of James Harrison and the speaker, who were 
ordered to return the old one with the hearty thanks 
of the whole house." ' The new government, as 
was to have been expected, differed from the old 
only in details. The council was reduced from 
seventy-two to eighteen, and the powers of the 
governor were further curtailed.* It is important to 
note that this constitution emanated from the 
assembly and not from the proprietary. 

^ Pa. Col. Records (1838), I., 4 (60); Votes of Assembly, I., 
7-10; Laws of the Province of Pa., 123-126. 

» Pa. Col. Records, I., 7 (63). » Ibid., 16 (72). 

* Poore, Constitutions, 1527; Shepherd, Proprietary Govern' 
ment in Pennsylvania, 251, 252. 

VOL. V. — 13 


An important difficulty had thus been met and 
safely passed, and the machinery of Penn's Holy 
Experiment was once more running smoothly. The 
proprietary, by brotherly love, earnest good-nature, 
and large sympathies, had won the confidence of the 
people. When, in May, 1684, the first assembly 
under the new frame was held, a feeling of loyalty 
and harmony prevailed and expressions of devotion 
to the proprietary took form in a law for the preserva- 
tion of the governor's person not only from attack 
but also from slander.* So long as Penn should re- 
main to soften animosities and check bitterness of 
feeling there was every reason to expect a har- 
monious government. 

Unfortunately, in August, 1684, the proprietary 
felt obliged for two reasons to leave the province 
and return to England. The dispute with Lord 
Baltimore was now at such a point that the pro- 
prietary was absolutely needed in England to de- 
fend his cause before the Lords of Trade. At the 
same time the English Quakers were undergoing 
such bitter persecution at the hands of the govern- 
ment that Penn believed he ought to be in England 
to mitigate their sufferings. His long friendship 
with the king and the duke of York made it more 
than likely that his intercessions at coiut would 
meet with success. 

Nor was he mistaken in his belief. In October, 

* Pa. Col, Records, I., 53, 54 (107); Laws of ike Province of 
Pa., chap, clxxi., 173. 


1685, he obtained a favorable report from the 
Committee of Trade and Plantations regarding the 
lower cotmties ; and after the duke of York became 
king, in February of the same year, he secured the 
release of more than twelve hundred members of the 
Society of Friends, imprisoned as Dissenters. The 
next year, when for the sake of the revenues the 
king caused writs of quo warranto to be issued 
against the proprietary and charter colonies, Penn 
warded off the attack on Pennsylvania and Dela- 
ware ;* and in 1688, when Andros was made governor 
of the Dominion of New England and New York, 
and the Jerseys were added, he obtained the ex- 
emption of Pennsylvania and Delaware from the 
new jtuisdiction.' 

But in almost every other respect Penn's absence 
was injurious both to himself and to his colony. His 
close connection with James II. and the court, his 
influence in securing the royal pardon on so many 
occasions, and his acceptance of the king's dec- 
larations of indulgence issued in defiance of law, 
brought him under suspicion. Before the revolution 
of 1688 he was charged with being a Jesuit and 
afterwards with being a Jacobite ; • he was arrested, 
threatened with imprisonment, and denounced even 
by many who should have stood loyally by him. 

* Dixon, Life of Penn, 539, 559. 

'AT. Y. Docs. Rel, to Col. Hist., III.. 536. 537, 543; Co/, of 
State Pap., Col, 1685-1688, § 1688. 

■ "The Jacobite party, of which Penn is known to be the 
head" {Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1689-1692, ( 2472). 


> After 1688, when the accession of William and Mary- 
cost him all his influence at? court, he would gladly 
have returned to his colony, but he could not. 
He was seriously embarrassed financially, his wife 
was dangerously ill, and he himself was three times 
arrested for treason. For thirty months he had to 
remain in retirement, during which time his enemies 
sought to ruin him. On March 10, 1692, an order 
in council was issued authorizing the governor of 
New York, Fletcher, to take Pennsylvania tmder 
his authority during the king's pleasure,* thus de- 
priving Penn of his colony. It was a staggering 
blow to the heavily burdened proprietary, who had 
been watching the progress of affairs in the colony 
and knew that he was needed there more than ever, 
and that a man of Fletcher's type would only make 
matters worse. The possible failure of his Holy 
Experiment was a greater sorrow to Penn than his 
own financial losses at home. 

After Penn's departure in 1684 the colony pros- 
pered commercially, but was disturbed by political, 
territorial, and religious disputes. The deputy 
governor, council, and assembly were unable to 
agree regarding the proper application of the 
constitution, for the Frame of Government gave to 
the council the power to frame bills and to the 
assembly only the right to accept or reject them. 
The council, which on Penn's departure was au- 

* Col. of State Pap., Col., 1689-1692, {{ 2118, 2227; N. Y. Docs 
Rcl. to Col. Hist., III., 835. 



thorized to act as governor/ was inclined to play 
the leading and dominant part, to the resentment 
of the assembly, which for ten years struggled to 
obtain the right to initiate legislation. In 1685, 
and again in 1686, the assembly protested because 
the council did not issue bills in the name of the 
governor, council, and assembly, as the charter 
required;* and eventually adjourned in great wrath. 
This disagreement with the council was accom- 
panied with an imforttmate internal quarrel. The 
assembly impeached Nicholas Moore, chief-justice 
of the provincial court, and one of its members, for 
sending unlawful writs to the sheriffs, for interfering 
with trial by jury, for denying justice, overawing 
witnesses, and perpetuating endless and vexatious 
suits, and it petitioned the council to remove him 
from office.' The council believing, as Penn him- 
self did afterwards, that the charges were the re- 
sult of personal ill-will, did no more than request 
Moore to give up his office till the charge should 
be tried. Eventually the matter was dropped en- 

Penn was perplexed and angry, both because of 
the friction in the government of his colony and of 
the inability of those whom he had left in command 
to rule wisely. " For the love of God, me, and the 
poor country," he wrote to James Harrison, one of 

* Pa. Col. Records, I., 66 (119). 

* Ibid., 82 (133); Frame of Government, ( 14. 
*Ibid.,S3-Ss (135-137). 

iqS colonial SELF-GOVERNMENT [1685 

the justices, "be not so govemmentish, so noisy, 
and open in your dissatisfactions." * Unable to 
go to Pennsylvania, as he ardently desired,' he 
determined to change the form of government. 
He revoked the executive functions granted to the 
council, and appointed as governor five conmiission- 
ers or councillors (three of whom were to make 
a quorum) to watch over the cotmcil and assembly 
and prevent quarrels and disorder, and to compel 
all to do their duty tmder the charter." The 
new arrangement worked no better than the old. 
Finally, in September, 1685, he made another and 
more important change: instead of allowing an 
elected council or a board of councillors to act as 
governor, he selected an appointee of his own, one 
Captain Blackwell, a resident of Boston, son-in-law 
of Cromwell's associate, Lambert, and formerly 
treasurer of Cromwell's army.* 

Blackwell came to Philadelphia in December, 
1685, with a grim determination to organize an 
efficient government. As he was not a Quaker, he 
was soon opposed by the leaders of the Quaker 
party, chief of whom was Thomas Lloyd, master 
of the rolls and keeper of the broad seal.* Un- 

* Proud, Hist, of Pennsylvania ^ I., 297. 

* Pa. Magazine, IX., 81. 

* Proud, Hist, of Pennsylvania, I., 305-307; Shepherd, 
Proprietary Government in Pennsylvania, 261-262. 

* Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1685-1688, §824. 

^ Pa. Col. Records, I., 186 (194-197), 207 (234-242), 256 
(279, 280). 


fortunate controversies followed till Lloyd became 
so excited that the governor had to adjourn the 
council, and Lloyd and his followers remained be- 
hind and made so much noise and clamor that 
passers-by in the streets stood still to hear.^ 
When Pent! heard of this painful incident he wrote 
to Lloyd in reproof, saying: " Do not be so litigious 
and brutish. . . . O, that some one would stand up 
for oiu* good beginnings and bring a savoiu* of 
righteousness over that ill savour." ' 

When Blackwell asked for his own recall Penn 
yielded too ready a compliance to the wishes of the 
opposition. He placed the question of the future 
government in the hands of the council, and agreed 
that he would accept any governor that they might 
select, or he would be content if the cotmcil itself 
acted as governor. Burdened with his cares in 
England, he begged his people to *' avoid factions 
and parties, whisperings and reportings and all ani- 
mosities," and to put their ''common shoulder to 
the public work." • The council, assuming the 
governorship itself, chose Lloyd as president, and 
made one more unsuccessful experiment. New 
questions arose: the inhabitants of the lower coun- 
ties, differing in blood and religion from those of 
Pennsylvania proper, began an agitation for sepa- 
rate government that ended ten years later in their 

* Pa. Col. Records, I., 252 (293, 294). 

' Penn to Lloyd, Historical Magazine, ist series, III., 105. 

• Pa. Col. Records, L, 274 (316). 


separating from Pennsylvania and having a legislat- 
ure of their own. In 1691, owing to the apostasy 
of George Keith, a schism took place among the 
Quakers which brought grief to members of the 
society eveiywhere. The tales of petty informers 
in England, who took pleasure in persecuting Penn, 
now that he had lost much of his influence at court, 
found support in the exaggerated accotmts of the 
bickerings and quarrels among Penn's colonists 
in America. 

These quarrels in Philadelphia were to no small 
extent responsible for the royal order of William III., 
in 1692, depriving Penn of his proprietorship *'by 
reason of great neglects and miscarriages in the 
government," whereby *'the same is fallen into dis- 
order and confusion, the public peace and ad- 
ministration of justice broken and violated," in- 
sufficient provision made for "the defence of the 
province against" the French, and danger of entire 
loss to the crown. For two years Pennsylvania 
was governed as a dependency of New York, until 
in 1694 the territory was restored. In 1696 Penn 
himself came over at last for a residence of five 
years in his colony. 

Though the tale on the political side is largely one 
of confusion and discord, yet in other respects the 
history of the province is one of steady and sotmd 
progress. Philadelphia increased rapidly in size, 
was deemed large enough for incorporation as a 
borough in 1684, and was incorporated with mayor 




6 " 

and aldermen in 1691.* The commerce was such 
that in the West India trade it was rapidly be- 
coming the only rival of New York, and was compet- 
ing with her for the control of the Indian trade 
of the Northwest. The position of the province, 
half-way between New England and Virginia, was 
a particularly strong one and gave promise of a 
great future. Despite the unsettled condition of 
government, the condition of the province in other 
respects was hopeful and encouraging. 

^ Pa, Col. Records, I., 64 (117); Pa, Magazine, X., 61-77; 
XV., 344. 



OP all the colonies on the main-land of America 
Virginia was the one most loyal to the Sttiarts. 
Berkeley had driven the religious Puritans out of 
the colony ; and those who cherished Puritan ideas 
of government gave no sign of their presence. 
The royalists in Virginia increased after 1649, and 
the colony, though it might well have held out 
against a siege, surrendered without a struggle 
to the fleet sent by Parliament in 1651 to effect 
its reduction. The surrender was the work of 
that large body of planters and freeholders, par- 
liamentarians and cavaliers alike, who desired 
peace, trade, and prosperity, and who saw in re- 
sistance and possible defeat a further restriction 
upon« their market, and consequent ruin. Though 
Berkeley ** blustered and talked of resistance,"^ 
and even raised a force to oppose the parliamentary 
commissioners, after long and serious debate an 
agreement was reached. 

By the articles of surrender, signed March 12, 

* Neill, Virginia Carolarum, a 20, 221. 


i662] VIRGINIA 203 

1652, Vii^nia acknowledged entire dependence 
upon the Commonwealth of England. In return, 
full pardon was promised to all who had acted or 
spoken against Parliament, land titles were guaran- 
teed, and the people of the colony were granted 
"free-trade as the people of England do enjoy to 
all places and with all nations according to the laws 
of the commonwealth." This clause certainly did 
not promise absolute free-trade, and was never so 
construed by the home authorities. Licenses were 
granted to traders who desired to ship goods to 
Virginia, and trade with the Dutch was forbidden 
to the Virginians, as well as to others, by the 
navigation act of 165 1.* In 1656* the planters 
complained that the navigation act, "tmless it be 
a little dispenct withall," would ruin part of the 
trade it was intended to advance.* The Virginian 
assembly, in an act of 1659, declared that the re- 
striction of trade hindered the "estimation and 
value of the only commodity — tobacco ;*'• and we 
know from the instructions to Berkeley in 1662 
that trade with the Dutch and other peoples of 
Europe had to be carried on surreptitiously.* 

Under the commonwealth and the protectorate 
the colony seems to have prospered, though no 
attempt was made on the part of the home au- 

* Cal. of State Pap., Col., i574-i66o,pp.403. 420. 

* Thurloe, State Papers, V., 80, 81; Rawlinson MSS., in Bod. 
Lib., A 38, 703. • Hening, Statutes, I., 450. 

^ Has&ard, State Papers, XL, 610, { 5. 

f655l VIRGINIA 205 

thorities to give settled form to the government. 
No doubt Cromwell ftilly intended at the earliest 
opportunity to issue a commission for a governor, 
because in 1653 and again in 1654 he discussed the 
matter with his council and expressed his determi- 
nation to do so.* But as nothing was done, the 
House of Biu'gesses in the colony, acting under the 
terms of the articles of surrender, assumed full 
authority and elected its own governor, first Ben- 
nett, and afterwards Mathews. Dissatisfaction soon 
arose. Divers merchants, planters, and others close- 
ly identified with the colony, sent addresses to the 
Protector begging him to consider the distracted 
state of the plantation. The committee of the 
council to whom the addresses were referred up- 
held the petitioners, and declared that the govern- 
ment in Virginia was very loose, the public ad- 
ministration very defective, the produce of the 
colony debased, and '*all the hopeful improvements 
designed and begim " received no encotiragement. 

The committee urged that some fit person be com- 
missioned as governor; and, after conference with 
the merchants, proposed Edward Digges as one who 
had given "a testimony of his prudence, conduct, 
and moderation." * While thus the mattei was 
under consideration at home, a controversy arose 
in the colony between Governor Mathews, who 

* Col. of State Pap., Col., 1574-1660. pp. 397. 413. 
*Ibid,t i574-i66o,p. 461; Egerton MSS., in British Musetim, 
2395, ^- 147- 


evidently believed that his powers should come 
from England and be the same as those of a reg- 
tilarly appointed governor, and the Hotise of Bur- 
gesses, which desired to retain authority in its 
own hands. Mathews in 1657 dissolved the as- 
sembly; the burgesses denying his right to do so, 
voted that any deputy accepting dissolution should 
be deemed a tihaitor ** to the trust reposed in him by 
his cotintrymen." * In the end the burgesses won 
the day. Although the Cotmcil of State thrice took 
the matter of Virginia's government tmder advise- 
ment, it never fotmd time or opporttmity to act, and 
the popular body was left in full control.* Mathews 
yielded the point in dispute, acknowledged the 
supreme authority of the House of Burgesses, and 
accepted another election as governor.* 
• After the abdication of Richard Cromwell, in 
1659, England was thrown into confusion. The 
Virginian assembly, forced to rely on its own re- 
sources, took matters into its own hands, passed a 
law declaring that the supreme power was vested 
in itself, and ordered that all writs shotdd run in its 
name until **such a command and commission 
come out of England as shall be by the assembly 
judged lawful." * In July, 1660, it elected Berkeley 
as its governor, and authorized him to summon an 
assembly once in two years, or of tener if necessary, 

^ Hening, Statutes, I., 499, 500. * Ibid., 509, 5x1, 513. 

• Ca/. of State Pap., Col,, 1574-1660, p. 461; Neill, Virginia 
Carolorum, 263. * Hening, StatuUs, I., 530. 

i66o] VIRGINIA ao; 

to appoint councillors and a secretary of state with 
its approval ; and to dissolve the assembly, but only 
with its own consent. 

In Virginia, as in England at the same time, the 
current of popular sympathy was running in the 
direction of the old order of things. The new 
assembly, which was elected under the liberal 
franchise of 1657 and 1658, represented better than 
had any previous body the sympathies of the 
people at large, who were ready to greet loyally the 
old governor, the old church, and the old system. 
This assembly elected Berkeley with the same 
readiness that an earlier assembly had welcomed 
the commissioners and elected Bennett, eight years 

In September, 1660, when the official announce- 
ment of the restoration of the Stuarts reached the 
colony, Berkeley's proclamation of September 20 
ordered for the first time that legal writs be issued 
in the king's name. Berkeley himself returned to 
England in the same year, and there received from 
the king definite instructions regarding the govern- 
ment of the colony. He was to see that the Church 
of England was established, to have churches built or 
repaired, and ministers provided with glebe-lands. 
He was to recognize the constitutional standing of 
the assembly, and to obtain the passage of laws 
suppressing vice, encouraging the building of towns 
after the fashion of New England, limiting the 
planting of tobacco, and stimulating the production 


of other staple commodities. Above all, he was to 
observe the acts of trade and to transmit to Eng- 
land yearly reports on the state of the colony.* 
Returning to Virginia in 1662, Berkeley summoned 
an assembly and presented for its consideration the 
various commands of the king.* 

During the fourteen years from 1662 to 1676 
conditions prevailed in the government and life 
of the colony which prepared the way for the great 
outburst of popular discontent knoT^Ti as Bacon's 
rebellion. Berkeley became the ruling spirit, "as- 
piring to a sole and absolute power and command." • 
He named his own councillors, and gradually 
gathered about him a party composed of the 
wealthier planters devoted to his interests and 
their own. He secured control of the House of 
Burgesses by proroguing it from session to session, 
until it sat almost as long as did the ''Cavalier 
Parliament" in England, thus transforming the 
assembly into a close corporation legislating in the 
interest of a small oligarchy. The assembly in 
1669 limited the franchise to freeholders, and so 
deprived part of the freemen of their right to vote, 
on the ground that voting in Virginia, as in Eng- 
land, should be the privilege of the wealthier classes, 
and that the freemen had little interest in the cotm- 

^ Col, of State Pap., Col., 1 661-1668, §368; Hazard, State 
Papers, II., 607-611. 

• Hening, Statutes, I., 172-176. 

• Complaints from Charles City County, in Vo. Magazine, 
III., 134. 

1663] VIRGINIA 209 

try, irlaking "ttimtilts" at the elections and "dis- 
turbing" his majesty's peace.* 

Though the assembly made some noteworthy 
efforts to curtail expenses, its policy in the matter 
of taxation was neither far-sighted nor just. The 
councillors were paid by exemption from taxation, 
a practice which was hardly a grievance to others 
so long as taxes were small, but became a heavy y/ 
burden when taxes increased.* Taxes were im- 
posed with little regard for the needs and conditions 
of the people at large. Acting under the king's 
instructions, the assembly in 1663 levied a tax 
of thirty pounds of tobacco per poll wherewith to 
encourage the building of towns;* but towns never 
flourished and the money was wasted. To defend 
the colony against the Dutch and the Indians, it 
made a number of levies for the erection of forts; 
but the Dutch made their attack before a fort 
could be built, and for fighting the Indians such 
strongholds were of little value.* Additional levies 
were made to support agents sent to England — ' * a 
necessary but grievous tax considering the general 
poverty of the country ' ' — and for local court-houses 
that cost three times as much as they were worth.** 

* Hening, Statutes, II., 280. 

' Ibid., II., 32, 84; complaints from Isle of Wight County, in 
Va. Magazine, II., 390 (art. 25). 

• Hening, Statutes, II., 172-176 (act xvi.). 

* Ibid., 220, 259, 291; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1675 -1676, 
§ 1099; Va. Magazine, IV., 120. 

• *' A Review, Breviary, and Conclusion," MS. in Public Rec- 
ord Office, Colonial Entry-Book, No. 81, f. 41. 

VOL v.— 14 


Many of the complaints were undoubtedly ex- 
aggerated, but the assembly at best showed little 
regard for the poverty of the people, and levied 
some of its heaviest taxes in 1675 ^^d 1676, when 
signs of distress and discontent were everywhere 
manifest. Long sessions and frequent meetings of 
the assembly increased the expenses of the counties 
for the salaries of burgesses, some of whom drew 
their stipend without attending, and charged up 
against their constituents the cost of the liquors 
they drank.* Little wonder that the people be- 
came rebellious: government was in the hands of 
a ring ; the assembly was elected by the wealthier 
classes; councillors were exempted from taxation; 
salaries were excessive, sessions long, meetings 
frequent, and the abuse of office a daily practice. 

The robbery at headquarters was accompanied 
with maladministration in local affairs also. The 
counties, of which in 1666 there were nineteen, 
were governed by appointed commissioners, one of 
whom was always made sheriff by the governor. 
These commissioners had general oversight of 
county affairs and constituted the court of the 
coimty, and to the sheriff was intrusted the collect- 
ing and disbursing of levies.' Other local officers 
were the vestrymen ; the local collectors of export 

* Cat. of State Pap., Col, 1675-1676, § 1068; 1677-1680, §§ 45, 
82, 1211. 

' Ludweirs account, i6t^., 1661-1668, §250; Va, Magasin^, 
V.» 54-59; Hening, Statutes, II., 65, 66, 315, 316. 

1672] VIRGINIA 211 

dues, castle and port charges;^ and the king's 
collectors of the penny a pound imposed by the 
navigation act of 1672. Against these ojflficials 
complaints were frequent and persistent.' The 
justices were charged with oppression, with levy- 
ing tobacco on the people for their own accommo- 
dation, and with raising other funds in the in- 
terest of particular friends. The sheriffs were 
charged with buying their offices and remaining in 
them longer than was lawful, with exacting ex- 
cessive fees, harrying poor debtors, and misusing 
funds.* The colonial collectors were complained 
of in half a dozen counties for failure to render 
accotmt of their collections and for pocketing the 

The burden of bad government might not have 
been so heavily felt by the poor classes of Virginia 
had it not been for the instability of their staple 
commodity — tobacco. Steadily during these years 
the price of tobacco declined. Beverley ascribes 
this fall in large part to the operation of the naviga- 
tion acts, which, he says, cut with a double edge, 
first reducing tobacco to a very low price, and, 
secondly, raising the value of European goods to 
whatever the merchants chose to put upon them. 
Furthermore, the penny a pound levied after 1672 
restricted export and reduced the profits of the 

* Hcning, Statutes, I., 534; II., 13- ' ^Wi.. XL, 3S3-3SS- 

■ Va. Magazine, II., 289, 290, 291, 387, 388. 
*Ibid., II., 166, 169, 170, 386-389; III., 3$. 


planters.* John Bland, in a famotis petition of 
1663 against the operation of the act of 1660, 
declared that France and Holland had begun to 
grow tobacco of their own, and that the tobacco 
industry of Virginia was threatened with ruin 
because the demand was limited to what England 
needed for her own consumption.* This assertion 
was probably not true; but the Virginia assembly 
made the same statement in the preamble to one 
of its acts.* 

More serious than the navigation acts in its 
effects upon the economic life of the colony was 
the overproduction of tobacco. Save for a trade 
in beaver skins, Virginia had no other commodity 
for export, and people raised no other crop except 
the food that they needed. As far back as 1630 
the attention of the planters was called to this 
danger,* but no heed was paid to the warnings, 
and the inevitable result followed. The price of 
tobacco fell lower and lower. A greater ntunber 
of pounds than before was required to obtain the 
English goods upon which the Virginians depended ; 
taxes, heavy at best, became heavier, because more 
tobacco had to be deducted to meet them; fees, 

* Beverley, Hist, of Virginia, $8, 59, 66 ; Va. Magazine, II., 
267, 268. 

^ Ibid., I., 141; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1675-1676, §923; 
Bruce, Econ. Hist, of Virginia, I., 360-362. 

* Hening Statutes, II., 141. 

* Va. Magazine, II.. 281 (art. 26); VII., 376; IX., 176-178; 
Keith, British Plantations in America, 135. 

1667] VIRGINIA 213 

reckoned in depreciated currency, seemed exorbitant, 
and the financial depression bore with exceptional 
weight upon the poor planter. The price of tobacco 
was not regulated by the demand in the colony, 
for the great bulk of the crop went to England, and 
the English merchants, possessing a monopoly of 
the trade, paid for tobacco pretty much what they 
pleased.* As the people said, **Tl>e planters are 
the merchants' slaves.*' 

Every effort was made to check production and 
to raise the price. A dozen acts of assembly were 
passed to encourage the growing of other staple 
commodities, such as flax, hemp, and silk ; as many 
more acts were passed forbidding the planting of to- 
bacco for a given length of time, so that the supply 
might be decreased. These measures proved futile. 
The Virginians refused to turn their attention to 
other forms of production, and the neighboring 
colonies, notably Maryland, refused to co-operate 
in diminishing the supply. 

Virginia suffered from other troubles arising out- 
side the colony. The war between England and 
Holland led to an attack in 1667 by the Dutch 
upon the shipping in the James River, that reminds 
one of the contemporary disgrace in England when 
the Dutch burned the English ships in the Medway. 
Five Dutch men-of-war attacked the king's frigate 
lying off Jamestown and carried off eighteen mer- 

1 Thurloe, State Papers, V., 80; Tanner MSS., in Bod. Lib., 
3X, ff. 137-139- 


chant ships.* Six years later, in 1673, the Dutch 
appeared again, this time with eight ships, and in 
a fight that lasted four hours burned eleven English 

More serious than these attacks was the great 
danger that threatened the colony when, in 1672, 
the very year of the Stop of the Exchequer, Charles 
11. granted the whole of Virginia for thirty-one years 
to his friends and advisers, Ariington and Cxilpeper, 
and erected it into a proprietary province similar 
to that of Maryland.* The powers of the grantees 
were to be those of a feudal lord, and many of the 
political privileges which the colony possessed were 
in danger of entire destruction. Immediately the 
colony bestirred itself and sent three agents to 
England to secure the vacating of the grant, and to 
obtain a charter which would settle all questions of 
land titles and forms of government in the future. 
The agents labored earnestly and with success ; they 
obtained from the grantees a renunciation of the 
grant, with the exception of the quit-rents and 
escheats, and were on the eve of securing a liberal 
charter (November, 1675) * when civil war in the 
colony compelled them to postpone further effort. 

^CcU: of State Pap., Col., 1661-1668, §1508; N. Y, Docs. 
Rel. to Col. Hist., II., 527. 

' Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1669-1674, § 1123. 

• Ibid., § 769. 

* Ibid., 1669-1674, § 770; 1675-1676, §§602, 603; Burk, Hist, 
of Virginia, II., App., Iv.-lvii. 




FOR some years before 1675 there were dan- 
gerous symptoms in Virginia. In 1663 **the 
discontented people of all sorts/' chiefly servants, 
united under the leadership of some Cromwellian 
soldiers in the "Berkenhead plot*' to murder their 
masters. The difficulty then concerned tobacco; 
the larger grievances had scarcely come to the front, 
and the quarrel between the governing oligarchy 
on one side and the overtaxed, neglected, and an- 
gry colonists on the other had not begun. 

The immediate cause of the serious outbreak 
known as Bacon's rebellion was a war between the 
colonists of Virginia and the Indians. Since 1630 
relations with the tribes along the frontiers had been 
peaceftd and the beaver trade brisk. In the sum- 
mer of 1675 Doeg Indians murdered two Virginian 
planters; and Mason and Brent, who commanded 
the military forces of Northumberland County, 
along the Potomac, with ill-judged zeal slew not 
only the mtirderers but other Indians also. Soon 
the frontier was in an uproar and the number of 



forays increased daily. The frightened colonists 
appealed to Berkeley for aid, but the old man, 
broken in health, deaf, very irritable, and in- 
fluenced it may be by the ring of politicians who 
controlled the government and made profits out 
of the Indian trade, brought down upon himself 
the maledictions of his contemporaries by refusing 
to have anything to do with the matter/ 

When the Susquehannocks rose in January, 1676, 
and murdered thirty-six Englishmen, the situation 
became desperate, and again Berkeley was called 
^ upon to protect the colony. He sent Sir Henry 
Chicheley with a large force to guard the frontier of 
the upper Rappahannock and Potomac rivers, but 
before the militia was fairly under way he revoked 
the order. Fearing for their lives, sixty planters 
fled from their homes, but others less fortunate 
were murdered, among them the overseer of yotmg 
Nathaniel Bacon, a recent arrival in the province. 
Even in this emergency Berkeley refused to act 
until the next assembly, summoned for March.* 

The assembly at first was active in providing 
for the military defence of the colony,* but in the 
end it proved as inefficient as the governor. The 
Indians continued their ravages, and the people, 
disheartened by the additional taxes which the 

* Beverley, //t5^ of Virginia, 58; Va. Magazine, I., 57, 59; III., 
137-139; IV., 121. 

* Va. Magazine, IV., 118; Mrs. Bacon's letter. Egerton MSS,, in 
British Museum, 2 :,()$, f. 550. *IIcnin:;, StaiWcs, II., 326-336. 


assembly levied for the building of forts, gave up 
all hope of relief through their authorized leaders. 
Once more they petitioned/ with the result that 
Berkeley not only refused to Usten to them, but 
ordered them to send no more petitions to him. 
Then the men of Charles City County began to 
enlist volunteers and selected Nathaniel Bacon as 
their leader. With three htmdred men behind him 
Bacon marched into the wilderness to seek the 
enemy. Berkeley, hearing that Bacon had taken 
military command without a commission, promptly 
declared all the volunteers a band of rebels and 
ordered them to return. All but sixty obeyed the 
order and turned back, but the others continued 
their march. Berkeley then raised a body of 
troops and pursued the ** rebels,*' but without 
success.' Bacon pushed on, stormed an Indian 
palisade, and slew one hundred and fifty Indians. 

In the mean time, stirrinig events were taking 
place in Jamestown. During the governor's ab- 
sence the people **drew into arms" and demanded 
the dismantling of the forts, the dissolution of the 
old assembly, and the summons of a new body that 
should be elected by an open franchise. Berkeley, 
fearing **the rage of the people,"* agreed to all 
that was demanded, and soon after the meeting of 
the new assembly, in June, 1676, pardoned Bacon, 

* Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1675-1676, § 921. 
' ** A Review, Breviary, and Conclusion," MS. in Public Record 
Office, Colonial Entry-Book, No. 81, f. 41. • Ibid., 3. 


and restored him to his place in the council, ap- 
parently to prevent his entering the assembly to 
which he had been elected and in which his in- 
fluence was bound to be felt. According to the 
Baconians, Berkeley promised Bacon a r^jular 
conmiission as commander-in-chief of the militia. 
The new assembly, under the guide of competent 
leaders, became a refprming body and handled 
many difficult questions with moderation and 
judgment. It provided for an efficient prosecution 
of the war against the Indians, and remedied many 
abuses, notably in local government.* 

While the assembly was in session a dispute 
arose between Berkeley and Bacon regarding the 
commission, the exact merits of which it is not 
easy to discover. The governor either refused to 
grant the commission or delayed so long that 
Bacon, anticipating refusal and perhaps fearing 
arrest, left Jamestown, and, gathering a body of 
five hundred followers, determined to obtain the 
commission, if necessary by force. Berkeley, im- 
porttmed by both cotmcil and House of Burgesses, 
yielded, and intrusted Bacon with a command 
against the Indians;' but no sooner was Bacon 
well on his way to the frontier than Berkeley 
summoned the militia of Gloucester and Middlesex 

* Hening, Statutes, II., 341. 

' The various accounts agree in these details; Sherwood's 
letter, Va. Magazine, I., 170; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1675-1676, 

a 9^4* 965. 969- 


counties to take the field against him. The troops 
as well as the people refused to support Berkeley, 
who, after a second time proclaiming Bacon a 
rebel, fled across the bay to Accomack. There he 
hoped to find a welcome, because the people of 
this cotmty had been peculiarly loyal to Charles II., 
had proclaimed him king in 1649, and had declared 
in 1652 that they were '* disjointed and sequestered 
from the rest of Virginia." But even the people 
of "this our kingdom of Accomack" now began 
to talk of a redress of grievances and a greater 
liberty of trade, and Berkeley soon found himself 
deserted by all save a few faithftd followers.* 

With the flight of Berkeley the sittiation under- 
went a change. The question of Bacon's com- 
mission and the war with the Indians fell into the 
background, and the movement took the form of 
a struggle between Berkeley and the people for the 
control of the government. Bacon, turning back 
from his campaign against the Indians, decided 
to become a rebel in very fact and to lead his 
followers against their legally constituted au- 
thorities. That he was actuated by the ambition 
of a demagogue we cannot doubt, but we must . 
also believe that he sincerely desired to alleviate the 
prevailing misery and distress.' But like others of his 
kind, he was headstrong and self-willed, and though 

* William and Mary Quarterly , I., 191 ; Burk, Hist, of Virginia, 
II., App., iv. 

' William and Mary Quarterly, IV., 133. 


possessing force and eloquence, was lacking in 
foresight and judgment. He was upheld by two- 
thirds of the people of the colony — employfe, ap- 
prentices, servants, slaves, small freeholders, and a 
few planters — the **scum'' of the province, Berke- 
ley's adherents most unjustly called them. His 
lieutenants were not the ignorant, desperate ad- 
venturers that the small clique of royalists declared 
them to be, but were able and intelligent men like 
the Scotsman, William Dnimmond, who had been 
governor of Albemarle in the year 1664. 

Bacon's first move was to stunmon a convention 
or mass-meeting of leading men, which draughted 
an oath of allegiance to the new order of things.* 
He then made an appeal to the people of Accomack 
justifying his conduct,* and sent his associates. 
Bland and Carver, across the bay to capture Berke- 
ley if possible. In the mean time he ordered the as- 
sembly to meet on September 4, 1676, and himself 
started on a new campaign against the Indians. 
Berkeley, having defeated the expedition led against 
him by Bland and Carver, took advantage of Bacon's 
absence, returned to Jamestown at the head of six 
hundred men, and seized the little town. Bacon, 
hearing of this turn of affairs while wandering among 
the woods near the falls of the James, hastened 
down the river, and surrounding the town prepared 

* A Narrative, 16-19; T. M., Bacon* s Rebellion^ 21; ** A Review, 
Breviary, and Conclusion " (cited above), 7. 
' Va. Magazine, I., 61, 62. 


for a regular investment. He successfully defended 
his men from a sally by the governor's party, and, 
according to the commissioners who investigated 
the matter afterwards, **got hold of the wives and 
women relatives of the governor's party and used 
them on the ramparts to keep the enemy from 
firing." * For a second time Jamestown fell into the 
hands of Bacon, and for the second time Berkeley 
fled to Accomack. 

On the night of September 19, Bacon set fire to 
the town and burned church, state-house, and dwell- 
ings, in order to prevent all sieges in the future ; but 
while preparing to invade Accomack and to organize 
an efficient settling of the government, he was 
stricken with fever contracted **by lying in a very 
wet season in the trenches before the town,"' and 
he died. After the death of Bacon, October 26, 1676, 
the rebellion dragged on for two months under In- 
gram, one of Bacon's lieutenants, but without chance 
of further success. It gradually degenerated into a 
scramble for plunder. Ingram was finally persuaded 
to surrender ; the servants and slaves among the fol- 
lowers were sent home to their masters ; and the free- 
men were imprisoned awaiting Berkeley's decision. 

Although Charles II. had issued a proclamation 
promising amnesty to all prisoners, Berkeley on his 
return from Accomack paid no attention to the 
king's decree, and, on the ground that too much 

* Va. Magazine, IV., 148; A Narrative, 23, 24. 

• ** A Review, Breviary, and Conclusion " (cited above), 11, la. 


leniency would certainly incline the rebels to a new 
rebellion, wreaked a bitter vengeance and caused 
thirteen Baconians to be put to death.* William 
Drummond refused to surrender, and was finally 
captured in January, 1677. **Mr. Drummond, 
you are welcome," said the old governor, bowing 
low. **I am more glad to see you than any man 
in Virginia. Mr. Drummond, you shall be hanged 
in half an hour.'' To which Drummond replied 
"As your honor pleases." And in four hours from 
that time he was dead.' The king did not approve 
of this summary proceeding, and eventually restored 
to Dnmimond's widow the estates which Berkeley 
had seized and confiscated. 

The authorities in England had already taken 
efficient steps for the suppression of the rebellion, 
which, during the months from September to 
November, 1676, loomed up before them as a 
serious civil war. The king issued letters for 
Berkeley's recall, appointed Sir Henry Chicheley 
lieutenant-governor, proclaimed a general amnesty, 
and considered sending a conunission with fleet 
and troops to Virginia to suppress the revolt and 
to inquire into the grievances of the colonists. 
Notwithstanding the advice of Moryson, Virginia's 
agent, to the contrary,' the cotmcil, in October, 1676, 

» Hening, Statutes, II., 366-371; Force, Tracts, I., No. x. 
' T. M., Bacon* 5 Rebellion, 23; Col. of State Pap,, CoL, 1675- 
1676, § 1035 (p. 454). 1677-1680, §424. 
* Rawlinson MSS., in Bod. Lib., A. 185, f. 256. 


decided to despatch a fleet, under the command of 
•Sir John Berry, and five companies of regulars (one 
thousand men) and a body of volunteers, tmder Cap- 
tain Herbert Jeffreys, of the First Guards, with equip- 
ment and supplies for three months. Jeffreys, 
Berry, and Moryson were constituted a commission 
with instructions for- the pacification of the colony. 
Jeffreys was appointed governor of Virginia, and a 
general proclamation was issued against Bacon,* 
October 27, the day after Bacon's death. 

January 29, 1677, Berry and Moryson arrived in 
Virginia, and shortly afterwards Jeffreys came to 
anchor with the main body of the troops. The 
first impression of the commissioners was favorable, 
for Bacon was dead and the rebellion over, and they 
were inclined to present Berkeley's conduct in a 
friendly light. They were puzzled, however, to 
know what to do with their soldiers, and probably 
failed to appreciate Berkeley's sarcastic comments 
on their position or the fears of the people at the 
presence of so many troops.* Their favorable im- 
pressions gradually altered, and they soon wrote 
home that they had been mistaken or deceived in 

In fact, the old man, either fearing an infringe- 
ment of his own authority or urged on by others, 
hinde^ced the work of the commissioners by every 
means in his power. He refused to recognize 

* Cat. of State Pap., Col., 1675-1676, §§ 1036, 1044, 1045, 
1050, 1053-1064, 1132. ' /Wd., 1677-1680, §25. 


Jeffreys as governor or to return to England; he 
paid no attention to the orders of the commissioners; 
he persuaded the assembly to refuse to show them 
official papers ; and he actually intimidated the peo- 
ple and made it difficult for the commissioners to 
obtain adequate information. He treated them 
with mock honor, calling them ** Right Honor- 
ables," until, as Moryson wrote, **This country will 
make us all fools and shortly bring us to Cuddy 
Cuddy/' Finally, Berkeley decided to sail for Eng- 
land, and when the commissioners called Jbo take 
their farewell leave of him capped the clinuys^ of in- 
dignities by sending them home in his ijf&ch. with 
the common hangman as postilion/ W .; 

The commissioners, thoroughly angry» reported 
Berkeley's conduct to the authorities in England, 
and thus prepared a warm reception for the old 
governor when, in his dotage, irritable and hardly 
responsible, he came home to die in his native land. 
The Lords of Trade passed a severe censure upon 
him and upheld the report of the commissioners. 
The king, greatly displeased, charged Jaim with 
disobedience, bad government, and illegal exactions, 
and refused to see him or to listen to })is plea. 
But in consideration of present infirmities jttid past 
service he took no action against him. Berkeley 
died in July, 1677/ > 

» Cat. of State Pap., Col., 1677 -1680, §§ 171, zg:g^.ax6, 821, 
1675-1676, § 173. ^ 

* Journal of the Lords of Trade, II., 176-178; Ofk of StaU 
Pap., Col., 1677-1680. §( 239, 244, 245. 247, 386. r 


After Berkeley's departure Jeffreys asstimed the 
office of governor and pushed forward rapidly the 
work of investigation and inquiry. The commis- 
sioners obtained from each coimty a statement of 
its grievances, negotiated a treaty of peace with 
the Indians, and relieved the province of a heavy 
burden by sending back to England most of the 
troops that for five months had been in camp in 
Middle Plantation. A hundred men remained to 
settle in the colony as planters. The commis- 
sioners also prepared an elaborate account of the 
rebellion for transmission to the king and Lords 
of Trade,* and when all had been finished, in the 
auttmin of 1677, Berry and Moryson returned to 

Bacon's rebellion was at bottom a protest against 
bad government, and was induced by an unfavorable 
condition of the industrial life of the colony.^ Men 
complained of the way the government was carried 
on; they objected to the management of affairs 
by a few men who were exploiting the colony for 
their own profit; and when the opportunity came, 
gave vent to their discontent and their misery by 
supporting a leader whom events had thrust to the 
front. The favorable results of the rebellion were 
that the colonists got rid of Berkeley, and obtained 
through the commissioners an opportunity to state 
their grievances; and many of the abuses were 
remedied by the express command of the king. 

* Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1677-1680, §§ 171, 240, 272, 433. 

VOL. v.— IS 


They also gained peace with the Indians, to the 
advantage of their fur trade. 

Nevertheless, a great and lasting disadvantage 
of the rebellion was that it checked the negotiations 
with the king for a charter of privileges, and in the 
end led to the issue of a doctiment far less liberal 
than that which the king had originally intended 
to grant. The draught ** Charter" of November, 
1675, contained nearly all that the Virginians had 
asked for; it vested full powers in the assembly, 
and estopped the king from further interference 
with the land titles of the colony. But the new 
** Charter," or grant of privileges,* obtained after 
the rebellion, said nothing about the right of the 
assembly to control taxation; and on the question 
of land ^ants made no promise as to what the king 
would or would not do in the future. 

Notwithstanding the efforts of the commissioners, 
the colony remained in an excited and overwrought 
condition. The people complained of Indian rav- 
ages, of the quartering of soldiers upon them, and 
of wide -spread ruin due to pillage and pltmder. 
Jeffreys died in 1678, and was succeeded by Sir 
Henry Chicheley, whom Baltimore spoke of as 
superannuated," and whom a sea-captain called 
very old, sickly, and crazy." Chicheley was im- 
able to alleviate the distress. Lord Culpeper, 
who was appointed governor in 1679 and served 
till 1684, reached the colony the next year. An 

* Burk, Hist, of Virginia, IL, App., iv.-lvii., Ixi., Ixii. 



assembly that he summoned to meet in Jime, 1680, 
passed an act of indemnity and oblivion to quiet 
the coimtry, and another ordering that all export, 
castle, and port dues be devoted to the expenses 
of the government — a wise and wholesome measure. 

Culpeper was an able man, but he was corrupt 
and pleasure-loving, extravagant and mercenary, 
and came to Virgmia to recoup his fortimes. To 
this end he persuaded the king to grant him an 
annual salary of 3^2000, and £150 for house rent 
out of the colonial revenue ; and during the four 
months that he was in the colony (May 3-August 
30, 1680) he extended perquisites and fees, trans- 
formed gratuities into regular payments, and com- 
pelled masters of ships or sailing-vessels to give, 
instead of presents of liquors or provisions, twenty 
or thirty shillings for every vessel clearing the 
harbor.* Little wonder that Burk, in commenting 
on Culpeper's withdrawal to England in August, 
says that he had gone to enjoy ** the ample revenues 
of his office." 

In the mean time the colony fell into a sad state 
of disorder because of the old difficulty — the low 
price of tobacco. Culpeper comprehended the 
situation during his short residence in the colony, 
but saw no other remedy than free-trade.' After 

* Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685, 5 319; Hening, Statutes, 
XL, 458, n., 466; Hartwell, Blair, and Chilton, Present State of 
Virginia, 142; Beverley, Hist, of Virginia, 78, 79. 

» CaL of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685, § 156. 



Culpeper's return to England, Chicheley, as deputy 
governor, summoned the assembly, which sought 
to quiet popular agitation by passing a law limiting 
the ntmiber of ports where merchandise could be 
landed and tobacco shipped. The measure proved 
of no avail, and in the attempts made to enforce 
it many vessels sailed away without a cargo, and 
the situation became worse rather than better/ 

Another assembly was called in the spring of 
1682, and Chicheley wrote without effect to Balti- 
more, hoping that the two colonies might agree on 
a limitation of tobacco-planting for a year.* Then 
nimibers of the people, disappointed that no limiting- 
law had been passed, took the matter into their 
own hands. Beginning in Gloucester Cotmty, bands 
of men advanced from plantation to plantation 
cutting down the tobacco plants and destroying 
**in an hour's time as much tobacco as twenty 
men could bring to perfection in a stunmer." The 
rioting spread into New Kent and Middlesex coun- 
ties, and for a time the militia was unable to con- 
trol it. The plant - cutters at first acted openly 
during the day, but afterwards did their work at 
night, and were aided not only by the servants, but 
by the planters themselves. When the men were 
arrested the women took up the work, and com- 

> Hening, Statutes, 471-478, 561; Col. of State Pap., Col., 
1681-1685, § 424. 

' Bruce, Econ. Hist, of Virginia, L, 405, n.; Cat. of State Pap., 
Col., 1681-1685, § 232. 


mitted serious damage before they were checked.* 
These ravages went on until August, 1682, when, 
after large amounts of tobacco had been destroyed, 
the energy of the rioters flagged and the movement 
came to an end. 

In November, 1682, at the express command of 
the king, Culpeper came back ; and though he had 
been tmwilling to return to the colony, he showed 
himself on the whole a prudent and energetic gov- 
ernor. After the arrest of several of the tobacco- 
cutters, the colony became peaceful, the price of 
tobacco rose, fears of the Indians decreased; and 
though rumors of pirates were frequent, no serious 
trouble appears to have been caused by them at 
this time. Still, Culpeper could not long maintain 
an energetic rule, and could not forget his own 
doctrine that no colonial governorship was worth 
while in which there was no profit. Therefore, in 
1684 he returned to England and was immediately 
deprived of his governorship for having left the 
colony without permission. Even after his return 
he petitioned the treasury to aid him in suing the 
colony for money that he claimed as his own.* 

The people, still poor and in many ways thrift- 
less, seemed to have exhausted their energies in 
the late troubles. Nevertheless, the next governor. 
Lord Howard of Effingham, got into constant 

» Cal. of State Pap., Col, 1681-1685, 55 494. 49S» 5«4. 
' Treasury, In Letters, Indexes, Reference-Book, ill., 3i4-3i^» 
in Public Record Office. 


difficulties with the deputies, who refused to pass 
measures recommended by the governor tmtil some 
grievances should be redressed/ A prolonged dead- 
lock ensued. In truth, Lord Howard was not fit 
for his place: he badgered and bulUed the assem- 
bly, and, when it opposed him, complained to the 
king of its ** peevish obstinacy." James II. upheld 
his servant, approved of his actions, and reproved 
the burgesses, whom he charged with holding irreg- 
ular and tumultuous meetings. 

The colony seemed on the eve of another revolt, 
and when the news came of the revolution in Eng- 
land, in the winter of 1 688-1 689, rumors of all kinds 
spread among the people. Roman Catholics were 
believed to be concerting with the Indians to mur- 
der the Protestants; and people in various parts 
of the colony took up arms to protect themselves. 
Men feared that French war-ships were about to 
attack the province, and in Virginia, as in Maryland 
at this same time, it was believed that there was 
neither king nor government in England. Finally, 
in April, 1689, fears were quieted by orders received 
from England to proclaim the new sovereigns; and 
with "unfeigned joy and exultation" William and 
Mary were declared sovereigns of England and her 

Virginia suffered during the years that followed 
Bacon's rebelUon from the character of the men 

* Hartwell, Blair, and Chilton, Present State of Virginia, 



whom the Stuart kings selected to rule over her. 
The colony was kept in a constant state of agitation, 
for the people were prone to tumult and the assem- 
bly to opposition; and the governors did little to 
quiet the discontent. The settlers were pushing 
into the back countries, establishing homes on the 
upper waters of the Potomac, Rappahannock, York, 
and other rivers, where they were suffering dangers 
from the Indians incident to frontier and wilderness 
life, and complaints of Indian raids from the north- 
west were frequent. Great distances made govern- 
ment throughout the colony difficult; councillors 
lived widely scattered, om the eastern shore, in low-^ 
land necks, and in the up-country ; wind and weather 
made rapid movement impossible; and, in winter, 
days and even weeks passed before all the members 
of the cotmcil could be assembled. With the bur- 
gesses the difficulties were even greater. Neverthe- 
less, the colony prospered, and when Nicholson came 
in 1 69 1 as lieutenant-governor under Lord Howard, 
a new and more peaceful era began. 





MARYLAND reproduced more than Virginia 
the religious and political conditions that pre- 
vailed in the mother - country . The proprietary, 
Lord Baltimore, possessed powers that were little 
less than royal ; and the people, sharing in legislation, 
yet prevented from controlling the government, 
because of the prerogatives vested in the pro- 
prietary by the charter, were divided into religious 
as well as political factions, that were more un- 
compromising in their hostility for each other than 
were any of the parties that upheld or opposed the 
policy of Berkeley. The first sixty years in the 
history of the colony were contemporary with the 
era of revolution in England, and there is scarcely 
a phase of the home conflict, from 1640 to 1688, 
that does not find its counterpart in the struggle in 

The revolutionary changes in England during 
these years often placed Baltimore in the awkward 
position of standing between two fires. His charter, 
granted by Charles L in 1632, was annulled in 1645 


i6s2l MARYLAND 233 

by the Long Parliament because of the Roman 
Catholic character of his colony ; * and the republic 
established in England after 1649 was hostile be- 
cause Baltimore's acting governor, Thomas Greene, 
a Roman Catholic, very indiscreetly proclaimed 
Prince Charies as king of England.' On the other 
hand, Baltimore, to whom toleration was a matter 
quite as much of business as of conscience, gave a 
welcome to all Protestants, in order to prevent the 
establishment of a Jesuit regime in Maryland ; and 
permitted a large body of them to settle half-way up 
M the Chesapeake on the Severn River. This admit- 
'^ tance of Dissenters cost him the favor of the Stuarts ; 
"• and Charles IL, then in France, annulled his charter, 
^ and appointed Davenant, the dramatist, as governor 
^of Maryland.' 

' The anomalous position occupied by the pro- 
'prietary imperilled his authority in the province, 
• and the Puritans even planned to separate from 
his government and set up a state for them- 
selves. This pressing danger of secession within 
the province was soon lost sight of, however, in 
the presence of a greater danger which threatened 
the proprietary from abroad. On March 29, 1652, 
the commissioners whom Parliament had sent to 
America to effect the reduction of Virginia and 

* Md. Archives, IIL, 164, 165. 

' Bozman, Hist, of Md., IL, 670. 

• Langford, A Clere and Sensible Refutation of Babylon* s Fall 
(1655), quoted, ibid., 672. 


"all the plantations within the Chesai)eake," ap- 
peared at St. Mary's, and obtained the submission 
of the colony to the "authority of the keepers of 
the Liberties of England." 

Baltimore, whose legal title was in no way im- 
paired by this event, refused to allow his authority 
in the province to go by default. He asserted 
his right to hold his province imder Parliament as 
formerly he had held it under the king, and de- 
manded that the people of Maryland recognize 
without limitation his full title under the charter. 
He bade Governor Stone, whom he had appointed 
in 1647 to succeed his brother, to issue a procla- 
mation declaring that all land patents should tie 
renewed and all writs issued in the name of the 
proprietary, and ordering the inhabitants to take 
an oath of fidelity on penalty of the loss of their 

The Puritans refused to submit, and sent a peti- 
tion to the commissioners, stating that the oath 
which Baltimore required was not agreeable to their 
idea of liberty of conscience. They said that it 
compelled them to swear "absolute subjection to a 
government, where the ministers of state are bound 
by oath to countenance and defend the Roman 
popish religion, which we apprehend to be contrary 
to the fundamental laws of England, the covenant 
taken in the three kingdoms, and the consciences 
of true English subjects, and doth carry on an 

* Md. Archives^ III., 298-300. 

i6s4l MARYLAND 235 

arbitrary power, so as whatever is done by the peo- 
ple at great costs in assemblies, for the good of the 
people, is liable to be made null by the negative 
voice of his lordship." * 

Here in a nutshell is the issue frankly stated. 
Lord Baltimore was a Roman Catholic, a royalist, 
an upholder of toleration for Roman Catholics as 
well as Dissenters, the proprietor of all lands under 
the charter, and the possessor of prerogatives that 
no parliamentarian could acknowledge. The Puri- 
tans were Dissenters and parliamentarians, intoler- 
ant in religion as were their fellows in England and 
New England, hating all Roman Catholics, hostile 
to the Stuart doctrine of government, and restless 
under any other control than that of God and 

The commissioners in replying to the petition 
protested against Stone's proclamation, but bade 
the Puritans remain peaceful. When in 1654 Crom- 
well became Lord Protector, Baltimore greeted his 
elevation with satisfaction, believing that the master- 
ful man who had just put an end to the rule of the 
Rump Parliament and had suppressed Leveller up- 
risings by force of arms, would give him support. 
He bade Stone issue another proclamation recog- 
nizing the protectorate and declaring that Mary- 
land was "subordinate unto and dependent upon 
the aforesaid government of the Commonwealth."' 

• "Baltimore's Case Answered" (Force, Tracts, II., No. ix.), 
29-31. ' Md. Archives, III., 304. 


The commissiQiiers, aroused by this defiant act, at 
once returned to Maryland, and, when Stone refused 
to withdraw the pixxrlamation, placed themselves 
at the head of the Puritans of Patuxent and the 
Severn, marched against St. Mary's, and compelled 
him to submit.* 

The next step was to depose Stone from the 
governorship and place in his stead, in the name of 
the Lord Protector of England, a Puritan, Captain 
William Fuller. They remodelled the government 
after that then existing in England and erected 
a crnincil of ten men, the majority of whom were 
Puritans. October 20, 1654, an assembly was called 
at Patuxent, which bears unmistakable marks of 
its Puritan character. By its votes, Roman Cath- 
olics were disfranchised and practically outlawed; 
and acts were passed touching drunkenness, swear- 
ing, and keeping of the Sabbath, and regulating 
arlministrative affairs. All was done in the name 
of the Ix)rd Protector; and even Baltimore's title 
to the lands of the province was ignored.* 

Stone wrote a full account of these events to 
Lf>rd Baltimore, who took immediate steps to re- 
cover his province. On appeal to Cromwell, the 
Protector wrote to Bennett, bidding him avoid 
further trouble and in all probability recommend- 
ing the colonists of Maryland, as he had done those 
of Virginia, to pursue ** peace, love, and the great 

* Account of the Commissioners. Md. Archives, III., 311, 312. 
» Ibid., 339-356- 

i6ss] MARYLAND 237 

interests of religion."* Baltimore at the same time 
wrote to Stone, enclosing a new set of instructions 
and reproving him for his tame submission.^ Stung 
by this rebuke, Stone, according to Bennett's report 
to Thurloe. ** forced his highnesses' subjects to take 
arms one against another, seized the records of the 
province, armed Papists and others, plimdered, dis- 
armed, and imprisoned all those who refused to join 
with him, . . . railing at and reviling the people, 
calling them Roimdheads, rogues, dogs, etc., setting 
up Lord Baltimore's colors against the colors of the 
conmion wealth . " " 

In the presence of these threatening actions the 
Puritans prepared for war. Stone sailed from St. 
Mary's, March 24, 1655, with a flotilla bearing be- 
tween one and two hundred men,* prepared for 
making an attack on the Puritan settlement on the 
Severn. There he was confronted by a force under 
Fuller, numbering one hundred and seventy, drawn 
up on shore to resist him. The day was won by 
the Puritans, aided by a New England trading 
vessel, under a Puritan master named Heamans, 
which happened to be lying in the harbor. The 
victory was stained by the unwarranted execution 
of three of the defeated party and by the disposition 
of the Puritans to carry their vengeance further. 

* Ccd. of State Pap., Col., 1574-1660, J 4i3- 

' Bozman, Hist, of Md., I., 694, 695; Thurloe, State Papers, 
v., 485. " Ibid., 485. 

* The accounts differ, one giving 137, another 200. 


Only the intercession of the women and of some of 
the soldiers themselves saved the lives of others of 
the proprietary party. 

The Puritans, who were now in full control, made 
immediate use of their power. They sequestered 
Stone's estate, kept Stone and many of his followers 
prisoners, and put others xmder bonds for their 
good behavior. However, they do not appear to 
have abused their opportunity, for they demanded 
no heavier punishment than the imposition of fines 
upon thirty-six of the St. Mary's men, "to cover 
losses made by the late march." * 

When Baltimore heard of the defeat and capt- 
ure of his governor he despatched to the colony 
new instructions, appointing Josias Fendall, one of 
Stone's party, governor in Stone's place, and naming 
five others as his council. Thus two governments 
existed for the province: one at St. Mary's, under 
Fendall ; the other at Providence, under Fuller. Of 
the two, the Puritan government was the stronger, 
and there is reason to believe that the Puritans were 
planning to separate themselves entirely from the 
remainder of the province and to set up an in- 
dependent government of their own. 

Baltimore was by no means at the end of his 
resources. With characteristic astuteness he bowed 
to the rising sun, and presented to the Protector a 
statement in which he emphasized in exaggerated 
terms his devotion to the commonwealth.* Com- 

* Md, Archives, X., 412-430. * Ibid.,, III., aSo, 281. 

i6s7l MARYLAND 239 

missioner Bennett, at this time also governor of Vir- 
ginia, endeavoring to meet what he called Balti- 
more's "specious pretences," also drew up a docu- 
ment, in 1656, and attempted to show how false was 
Baltimore's claim of loyalty to the existing gov- 
ernment in England.* Yet Baltimore obtained a 
reference of the case to the committee of trade.' 
There the matter was discussed and a report pre- 
pared, probably recommending some modification 
of Baltimore's powers; but the Protector was too 
much distracted by public business in England to 
settle the government of Maryland. 

The delay worked to Baltimore's advantage, for 
in 1657 and 1658 indications in England were point- 
ing to the failure of the Puritan commonwealth.' 
Without waiting for a decision from Cromwell, 
Bennett and Mathews, his colleague, made overtures 
for a settlement, and reached an agreement with 
Baltimore. Acting for the Puritan party, they 
conceded the chief point at issue — recognition of 
the proprietary's prerogative — and gave up the 
struggle. The people of Maryland promised to re- 
turn to their allegiance if the proprietary would 
preserve all land titles and maintain in force the 
toleration act of 1649. On November 30, 1657, 
the agreement was finally signed.* 

* Thurloe, State Papers, V., 483. 

» Cal. of State Pap., CoL, 1574-1660, pp. 435. 43^. 447- 
■ Thurloe, State Papers, V., 482. 

* Md. Archives, III., 332-334. 


Thus Baltimore won the victory over enemies 
who had twice defeated his authorized deputy, 
Governor Stone, and twice deprived him of his 
proprietary rights. Though his success was due 
to skilful diplomacy and to a shrewd regard for 
the main chance, he might have had too little in- 
fluence with the committee of trade, or even with 
Cromwell himself, but that religious interests were 
giving way to those that were political and economic. 
Merchants who were members of the colonial and 
trade committees in England were anxious for a 
cessation of hostilities in order that the colonies 
might be restored to a normal condition of pros- 
perity. Baltimore's claims were entirely just from 
the legal point of view, and there was no other 
solution of the problem than to give back the 
colony to its legitimate proprietary ; but the English 
merchants, to whom the tobacco trade was a 
means of livelihood, threw themselves into the 
balance on the same side. At this time the influence 
of the merchant and trading classes in shaping the 
policy of the government at home was a factor of 
great and growing importance. 

Lord Baltimore, though victorious over the 
Puritans, had one more crisis to face before he 
could enter upon the full possession of his pro- 
priety. Notwithstanding a long dispute with Vir- 
ginia over the possession of Kent Island and the 
proper location of the boundary -line between the 
two colonies on the eastern side of the bay, Mary- 

i66o] MARYLAND 241 

land was always more or less influenced political- 
ly by her powerfiil neighbor. In March, 1660, the 
Maryland assembly attempted to follow the exam- 
ple of Virginia ; and, despite the fact that Baltimore 
was the legal and accepted head of the government, 
the House of Delegates declared itself **a lawful 
assembly, without dependence on any other power 
in the province," and took to itself the authority 
of the ** highest court of judicature." * 

Fendall, whom Baltimore had appointed gov- 
ernor in 1657, came out boldly against the pro- 
prietary, and said that in the charter the king 
had originally intended to grant the freemen full 
power to make and enact laws, which, when pub- 
lished in the proprietary's name, were to have 
force without the proprietary's consent.^ He 
carried the council, against the remonstrance of 
Philip Calvert, who held his brother's commission 
as secretary. Emboldened by this support, the 
delegates proposed to abolish the upper house or 
council altogether, and Fendall resigned his com- 
mission as governor, to become speaker of the 
lower house — an act implying a complete denial of 
the rights of the proprietary. 

The attempt was too late to be successful. Before 
the news of this action reached England, Charles 
II. was on the throne. Lord Baltimore acted 
with efficiency and despatch. He appointed Philip 
Carteret governor, and obtained from the king 

> Md. Archives, I., 388. ' Ibid., 389. 

VOL. V. — 16 


a prr^danatsoa 'ienoancfng' FendalTs igtfftiinn azid 
cr>cr.rriarTr:ir:g the peccie to yfipii-f ooedkoce to the 
ptr^rietr^rj- In Xoverzbcr, r66o. Cahrert^ actzng 
6n his brothers msunctions, prjciaimed a goaeral 
satiMSlj ZTj an who woaii acknowledge Balrnrmce's 
jtm^ictifjXi, Some of the members ot the as- 
i«nr>Iy irer* parioceri^ others were deprived oc 
their civil rights, and Fendall was aOowed to leave 
the province. The cocspiracy is significant as an 
early phase of the struggle between the assembly 
and the feadal executive, that was to mark the 
history of all the provincial colonies in later times. 

The factional quarrel between the proprietary 
and the Puritans checked the economic prosperity 
of the province. Maryland was not wealthy, and 
the colonists could hardly be called thrifty. The 
settlements lay along the shores of the Chesapeake, 
from St. Mary's north to the mouth of the Sus- 
quehanna, and south on the eastern shore from 
Hermann's plantation, called Bohemia, to Watkins 
Point. The coast -line was broken by frequent 
rivers and bays, about which were swamps and 
mr>rasscs that made communication other than by 
water almost impossible. Though the uplands, 
where tobacco was cultivated, were fertile, induce- 
ments to thrift and economy were few ; and, in the 
main, farms were mean and small, and the taxes, 
even when moderate, were felt to be a burden. 

Alsr)i)'s description of the province in 1666, and 
Hammond's statements in his Leah and Rachel, are 

i67S] MARYLAND 243 

probably too favorable, and give a picture of comfort 
and ease that is not borne out by other observers 
or the evidence of the laws. The main body of the 
settlers lived isolated, often primitive, lives, subsist- 
ing on wholesome but coarse food, including little 
milk or butter, and drinking frequently and heavily 
in those portions of the colony where lands were low 
and the climate damp/ For planters and farmers 
alike the sole industry was tobacco planting, and 
so rich was the soil that, according to contemporary 
report, tobacco could be raised for thirty years on 
the same piece of land. Labor was performed by 
servants and negroes, whose life, as seen by Bankers 
and Sluyter, was wretched in the extreme.^ Yet 
the Maryland people, though inclined to be un- 
progressive and indolent, were comfortable and in 
the main contented. 

The colonists paid their quit-rents, taxes, and 
fees in tobacco; and whatever touched the price 
of this staple touched the welfare of the colony. 
There was almost no coin in circulation, and the 
demand made in Maryland by Lord Baltimore and 
in Virginia by Governor Berkeley, that quit-rents be 
paid in money, raised a great outcry. As tobacco 
fell steadily in price after 1660, long and earnest 
inquiry was made into the cause, and the assembly 

> Dankers and Sluyter, Journal, 216-219; Cook, Sot -Weed 
Factor, 4, 5. 

' Dankers and Slujrter, Journal, 191, 192, 217; Md. Archives, 

XIII., 451-457- 


tried hard to effect an arrangement with Virginia, 
whereby tobacco planting might be stinted ; but all 
plans for this purpose were vetoed by the pro- 
prietary/ Baltimore did not believe that over- 
production was the greatest obstacle to the progress 
of the colony, and he frankly told the Lords of 
Trade that in his mind the navigation acts held 
first place. Nevertheless, he made honest efforts to 
carry out the acts,^ and pointed to the customs 
receipts in England to show how valuable Maryland 
was to the crown. The colony had no shipping of 
its own, and was dependent on others to do her 
carrying-trade. The irregular manner in which the 
New - Englanders disposed of Maryland tobacco 
can hardly be charged against the proprietary, so 
long as he saw to the taking out of bonds or the 
payment of the penny a pound demanded by the 
act of 1672. 

In 1 66 1 Charles Calvert was sent over as governor, 
and on the death of Lord Baltimore in 1675 became 
himself the proprietary. Except for an absence 
in 1676, he remained in Maryland until 1684 and 
personally directed the government of the province. 
He had little of his father's tact, and made few 
efforts to conciliate those who opposed him, or to 
compromise with the dominant party in the colony. 
He had his father's strength of will without his 
sense of humor, and he saw no remedy for Mary- 

* Md. Archives, III., 457, 476, 504, S47» 55©. 55^- 
^Ibid,, 446, 454, 459» 484; v., 24, 25,31. 47» 123, 124. 

x67sl MARYLAND 245 

land's troubles except in manipulating government 
in such a way as to maintain his authority. He was 
always at the head of a minority. He ruled ar- 
bitrarily, saw but one side of a difficulty, and em- 
ployed men that were not always trustworthy and 
means that were not always creditable. Never- 
theless, he was interested in the colony, and studied 
to improve its condition, winning his adherents 
rather by adding to their prosperity than by heeding 
their political demands. 

Though life in the colony from 1661 to 1675 
was peaceful, the old discontent was not quieted. 
Complaints were frequent, quarrels between the 
council and the lower house were of common oc- 
currence, and government was in the hands of a few 
and controlled by the proprietary's relatives. The 
governor and the council were accused of levying 
excessive taxation, of placing Roman Catholic mem- 
bers of the governor's family in offices of state, of 
favoritism in subordinate appointments, and of in- 
terference in the elections. Many of the charges 
were true, others were but the shreds and patches 
of truth. 

It is true that Calvert manipulated government so 
that he might control it. He formed a political 
ring made up of his relatives;* he followed the 
example of Virginia in restricting the suffrage;' 
and he summoned, as Virginia had done, but half 

* Sparks, Causes of the Revolution of i68g, pp. 64, 65. 
' Md. Archives, V., 77, 78. 


the deputies elected, in order to save the counties 
half the expense of their members. By limiting 
the suffrage he disfranchised the poorer classes; 
and by refusing to summon all the delegates, he 
kept out of the assembly men of influence who 
opposed him. 

In 1676 Calvert, now Lord Baltimore, went to 
England, and left Notley as governor in his place. 
The discontent already prevalent in the colony was 
increased by rumors of an Indian invasion, which 
many of the Protestants declared was incited by 
the Roman Catholics of Maryland, acting in col- 
lusion with the French, for establishing a "Jesuit- 
ical" government in Maryland.* The excitement 
was increased by the reports that came from Vir- 
ginia of Bacon's uprising; and scarcely were the 
rumors of an Indian war shown to be baseless when 
a number of colonists — Davis, Pate, and others — 
** malcontents, but otherwise of laudable charac- 
ters"^ — drew up a ** seditious" paper, and gathered 
together sixty men for the purpose of overawing 
the governor and the assembly (1676). Notley 
acted with commendable speed, and arrested and 
hanged Davis and Pate. This summary proceed- 
ing, followed by the death of Bacon in Virginia, 
brought the premature and ill-advised uprising to 

* See remonstrance of 1676 in Md. Archives, V., 134-149; 
Doyle, English in America, I., 317; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 
1661-1668, §404 (wronply dated). 

* T. M., Bacon's Rebellion (Force, Tracts, I., No. viii.), 21, 

i684] MARYLAND 247 

an end.^ Like Bacon's rebellion, this revolt against 
the authority of the proprietary in Maryland had 
its origin in poverty, ignorance, and political dis- 

During the next four years, the rival powers of 
governor and assembly came frequently into con- 
flict in the legislature of the colony, the popular 
body seeking to limit the authority of the executive. 
Also after 1678 Lord Baltimore was confronted 
with additional difficulties, the most unfortunate 
of which was the dispute with William Penn. 
The m'erits of this boimdary case can never be 
satisfactorily determined: the technical right lay 
with Baltimore, and we cannot admire Penn's 
inclination to ignore it; nevertheless, sympathy 
is bound to lie with Penn in his desire to save 
his capital and to obtain a commercial outlet for 
his colony.' In an age of confused and conflicting 
land grants, when scarcely one of the colonies was 
able to retain without dispute the boundaries 
originally assigned, we can hardly accept a plea 
based on nothing else than a literal interpretation 
of the terms of a charter. Were such a plea ad- 
mitted as final, every colony would be more or less 
under indictment. 

For both proprietaries the results were most 
disastrous. Baltimore and Penn went to England 
in 1684, each to present his own view of the case, 

* Md. Archives, V., 153. 

' Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685, {{ 468, 469. 


and each, though eager to return, was detained 
there at a time when his presence was greatly 
needed in his colony to uphold his prerogatives. 
Baltimore's presence in England was needed be- 
cause he was already out of favor with the Lords 
of Trade on accoimt of his quarrel with the royal 
collector. Until 1676 Calvert acted as his own col- 
lector of customs, but in that year he reconunend- 
ed the appointment of Christopher Rousby, with 
whom and with Badcock, the king's surveyor of 
customs, he was soon in controversy. Rousby ap- 
pealed to the Lords of Trade. Badcock accused 
Baltimore of interfering with him in the performance 
of his duty. The Lords of Trade in 1681 decided 
in favor of the officers ; reprehended Lord Baltimore ; 
bade him refund £2500, of which they claimed he 
had defrauded the customs by his interference ; and 
threatened him with the loss of his charter if he 
did not obey the acts of trade.* 

Rousby returned to Maryland, and, while Balti- 
more was in England, became involved in a quarrel 
with George Talbot, Baltimore's hot-headed relative 
and head of the council, and was murdered. This 
unfortunate incident led to the issue of a writ of 
quo warranto against the charter, and though the 
writ was never executed, Baltimore's standing in the 
eyes of the home authorities was very much impaired. 

If the trouble with Rousby pointed to the pro- 
prietary's neglect of the acts of trade, a new trouble 

* Journal of the Lords of Trade, III., 319, 320. 

i68i] MARYLAND 249 

with Fendall, who for twenty years had been a 
leader among the Protestant enemies of the pro- 
prietary, seemed to indicate imrest and discontent 
within the province that Baltimore was unabfe to 
control. In 1681, taking advantage of the quarrel 
in England between Charles II. and the parliament 
of that vear, Fendall endeavored to stir up the people 
of Charles and St. Mary's counties, and to tamper 
with some of the proprietary's officers. With a 
fellow-agitator, John Coode, he planned the over- 
throw of Baltimore's government and the expul- 
sion of all Roman Catholics from Maryland.^ But 
with Coode and another malcontent, Godfrey, he 
was arrested and imprisoned; and in November, 
1 68 1, was tried for ** mutinous and seditious speeches, 
practices, and attempts" against the proprietary, 
**to the subversion of the state and government 
of the province." Coode was acquitted, Fendall 
fined 40,000 pounds of tobacco and banished, and 
Godfrey sentenced to be hanged, though the penalty 
in the latter's case was afterwards remitted.^ The 
evidence brought forward at the trial discloses an 
imsettled condition of public opinion in the province, 
and shows how ready were the enemies of Baltimore 
and the Roman Catholics to take advantage of 
every changing fortune in English affairs to effect 
their overthrow. 

* Col. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685, $ 351. 
' Md. Archives, V., 313-328; Cal. of State Pap,, Col. 1681- 
1685, §391. 


Baltimore planned to return to Maryland in 
September, 1686, but was compelled to remain in 
order to thwart Penn's attempt to obtain the dis- 
puted territory below the fortieth parallel and to 
meet the king's attack on the charter; he therefore 
sent over William Joseph as his deputy. News of 
the birth of a son to King James in 1688 led to 
excessive demonstrations of loyalty in Maryland 
that did not serve to allay popular fears regarding 
the Roman Catholic and monarchical tendencies 
of the government/ But the governor's speeches 
and the proclamations regarding the young prince, 
ridiculous though the phrases were in which they 
were couched, did not arouse any special excitement 
at the time; and a list of grievances which the 
assembly handed in to the governor shortly after- 
wards was so moderate in character as to show 
that certainly the deputies, and probably the greater 
part of the people, had no thought of revolution. 

When contrasted with Virginia, Maryland shows 
no such combination of circumstances leading to 
revolution as prevailed below the Potomac at the 
time of Bacon's rebellion. Indian difficulties were 
less acute; the policy of the proprietary party, 
though similar in character to that of the ring in 
Virginia, was less offensive and less burdensome 
than in that colony; the people at large, widely 
scattered and divided by a broad expanse of water 
into two parts, were less competent to act efficiently 

* Md. Archives, VIII., 15; XIII., 184, 185. 210. 

1 688] 



against the proprietor even had they been inclined ; 
while there were present no leaders on either side 
in Maryland like Berkeley with his spleen and 
Bacon with his commanding personal magnetism. 
The revolution that finally took place in Maryland 
was, as the sequel will show, not a popular move- 
ment nor one which would have succeeded inde- 
pendently of influences from England. It was 
but a phase of the general uprising in the colonies 
which followed the revolution of 1688 in England. 




WHAT was going on in New England dtiring 
these years of turmoil in the south? For a 
long time after 1668, the enemies of Massachusetts 
waited their time. The early complaints sent in 
to the Lords of Trade were largely personal in 
character, affecting individuals and not the crown. 
These complaints and the report of the commis- 
sioners, who had so unforttmate an experience in 
1665 in Boston, gave the colony a bad name in 
England, where she was charged with the possession 
of a peevish and touchy humor; but they did not 
offer a sufficient basis for an attack on the charter. 
When, however, new complaints began to come in, 
showing that the king's revenue and the king's 
prerogatives were threatened by the colony, the 
Lords of Trade began to consider in earnest a policy 
of coercion.* 

In 1675, when Massachusetts was involved in 
King Philip's War, her enemies renewed the attack; 

* Evelyn, Diary, IL, 66; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1669-1674, 
§ 1059; Hutchinson Papers, IL, 174, 175, 204, 


i67s] NEW ENGLAND 253 

and in 1676 London merchants came to their aid 
by declaring that New-Englanders were accustomed 
to avoid customs dues by trading directly with the 
Continent, and to get all the trade into their own 
hands by underbidding competitors.^ In the eyes 
of the council, New England was guilty of carrying 
silk and wool to France and tobacco to Holland, 
Spain, Portugal, and the islands; and of bringing 
back European goods from the Continent and wines 
and brandies from the islands, and so making New 
England, and not old England, the mart and staple, 
prejudicing the navigation of the kingdom, impair- 
ing the king's revenue, lessening the price of home 
and foreign commodities, decreasing trade, and im- 
poverishing the king's subjects. It did not matter 
that the charges were exaggerated; the Lords of 
Trade took them seriously. 

For Massachusetts the time was critical. The 
rapid growth of population hastened the inevitable 
struggle between the white man and the Indian for 
the possession of territory that had hitherto been 
large enough for both. As long as Massasoit, chief 
of the Wampanoags, and Canonicus, chief of the 
Narragansetts, lived, the relations were eminently 
friendly. With the death of the former in 1660, 
and of his son, Alexander, in 1662, conditions 
changed, and tmder Meatocom, or Philip, as the 
English called him, the Wampanoags were aroused 
to war against the English. 

» Col. of State Pap.^ CoL, 1675-1676, §787. 


The first attack was made on Rhode Island, at 
this time tmder the control of the peace-loving 
Quakers: and the first blood was shed at Swansea, 
Jtme 24, 1675. Soon all central and southeastern 
New England was ablaze. Efforts made by 
Connecticut and Massachusetts to control the 
Nipmucks failed; and in August that tribe joined 
Philip and began a career of murder and pillage 
that chilled the heart of the bravest of the colonists. 
Deerfield, Northfield, Springfield, and Hatfield were 
attacked, houses ravaged and burned, settlers slain 
and scalped, women and children carried into 

Fearing that the Narragansetts were preparing 
to join the murderous fray, Massachusetts, Plym- 
outh, and Connecticut attacked their swamp fort 
on December 19, 1675 ; ^^d after a fierce and bloody 
fight, in which sixty-eight Englishmen were killed 
and one hundred and fifty wounded, captured the 
stronghold and dispersed the surviving members 
of the tribe. The defeated Indians, hot with 
desire for revenge, joined Philip and initiated a 
second period of massacre. In Rhode Island the 
men of the main-land fled to the island, leaving their 
homes to be pillaged and burned; Captain Pierce, 
of Plvmouth, was cut off and killed with a small 
contingent of men; towns along the Massachusetts 
frontier were sacked with wanton waste and then 

For fotir months the horrors continued, but 

1676] NEW ENGLAND 255 

gradually the strength of the Indians gave way. 
Canonchet, of the Narragansetts, was taken and 
shot in April, 1676; in May one hundred and thirty 
warriors were cut down on the Connecticut; and 
others suffering from want of food began to weaken 
in their loyalty to their leader. Philip's confeder- 
acy of Wampanoags, Nipmucks, and Narragansetts 
broke up. On August 12, Philip himself was run 
down and slain by a doughty Indian fighter, Colonel 
Benjamin Church, at the Indian stronghold, Mount 
Hope ; and the last serious attempt of the Indians 
to check the triumph of the English in New England 
was brought to an end. 

The war had wrought great devastation and ruin. 
Houses and towns on the frontiers were in ashes. 
During the campaign Indians had often penetrated 
into the heart of the colony, and, as in the case of 
Plymouth, had destroyed the growing crops, which 
were at the fulness of their ripening. So serious 
was the famine threatening some parts of New 
England that the colonists sent to Virginia for food, 
and bought such quantities of all sorts that the 
Virginia assembly promulgated a law forbidding 
the exportation of provisions from that colony. 
More serious for the prosperity of New England 
than the loss of the harvest was the injury done 
to the beaver trade, which was almost entirely de- 
stroyed; to the fishing industry, which was badly 
crippled; and to the whole exporting business to 
Barbadoes, whereby the New-Englanders obtained 



wine, liquors, and money, and, by exchange with the 
Virginia planters, tobacco and other commodities. 
Governor Berkeley, writing before the war was over, 
said that, as it was, the New England colonists 
would not "recover these twenty years what they 
have lost" ; and that if the war continued for a year 
longer they would be ** the poorest, miserablest peo- 
ple of all the English plantations in America." * 

While in this plight Massachusetts was called 
upon to face a renewal of the attack on her charter. 
As early as August, 167 1, it was suggested that a 
conmiissioner be sent to Massachusetts. The com- 
plaints regarding trade touched king and lords in 
a tender spot, and effected that which Quakers, 
Anglicans, and other individual complainants had 
not been able to accomplish. Two months before the 
death of Philip (Jime, 1676), Edward Randolph, one 
of the most remarkable characters in New England 
history and an arch-defender of the Stuart cause 
and policy, landed at Boston to begin an inquiry 
into the condition and conduct of the colony. Ran- 
dolph henceforth was the chief complainant against 
Massachusetts. Looking into every part of the 
colonial government, and criticising every detail 
with a prejudiced eye, he concluded as early as 
July, 1677, that a quo warranto ought to be issued 
against the colony. From this time forward he 
had but one object in view — to bring the colony 
into a closer dependence upon the crown, and thtis 

» Cal. of State Pap,, CoL, 1675-1676, $ 859. 

i677l NEW ENGLAND 257 

to make it more useful to the kingdom. To this 
extent he was, in fact, the '* subverter of Massachu- 
setts liberties." 

All the old charges and complaints now rose up 
to discomfort the colony : Massachusetts authorities 
had failed to capture the regicides; had treated 
insolently the commissioners of 1664; had evaded 
the king's command to broaden the suffrage, even 
while pretending to obey it;^ had disregarded the 
Mason and Gorges claims in extending jurisdiction 
over York County and the Merrimac territory ; had 
oppressed weaker neighbors, as in the boundary 
disputes with Plymouth, Connecticut, and Rhode 
Island; had established a mint and coined money; 
had levied taxes on non-freemen as well as on free- 
men; had denied the right of appeal to England 
from the courts of the colony ; and in general had 
passed laws and exercised powers not warranted 
by the charter. 

Notwithstanding the gravity of these accusa- 
tions, Massachusetts might have escaped but for 
other charges, general rather than individual in 
character, touching the interests of the king and 
the kingdom: first, the independence affected by 
the colony; secondly, the colony's neglect of the 
king's express commands and its apparent in- 
difference to the king's authority; and thirdly, its 
evasion of the navigation acts, whereby the royal 
revenues were curtailed. 

* Hutchinson Papers, II., 146, 147. 

VOL. V. — 17 


The first of these charges was not new. The 
commissioners of 1664 commented on the re- 
fractoriness of the colony; and when they were 
recalled, many people in England believed that 
Massachusetts would separate from England and 
set up for herself.^ The council declared that the 
Massachusetts oath of fidelity ought to be abolished 
because it placed allegiance to the colony before 
allegiance to the king.' The colony, while molli- 
fying the royal anger by letters of adulation and 
offers to take the oath of allegiance, reaffirmed 
the oath of fidelity more strongly than before,' 
and took the definite groimd that, as regards the 
orders of the king and the laws of Parliament, it 
was protected by its charter; and that no act, of 
navigation or other, had any validity in the colony 
unless it had been passed by the colonial as- 

These somewhat abstract complaints did not, 
however, irritate and provoke wrath as did the col- 
ony's impolitic disregard of the royal commands. 
Massachusetts, while clinging to her prerogatives 
with all the tenacity of a Stuart, seemed to go out 
of her way to flatmt her claims in the face of the 
home authorities. In 1665, when ordered to send 

* Hutchinson Papers, II., 140-153; Toppan, Edward Ran-- 
dolph, I., 41, n., 103; Evelyn, Diary, II., 66. 

> Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1677-1680, § 668. 

* Mass. Col. Records, V., 153, 154, 1 91-193. 

* Randolph's Answers to Queries {Hutchinson Papers, 11.^ 

i68i] NEW ENGLAND 359 

over agents, she delayed until the Lords of Trade 
could charge her with deliberate refusal.^ 

This policy was repeated ten years later, when the 
agents arrived nearly two years after the colony 
had been instructed to send them; and in each 
case the agents were found to be so limited in powers 
as to give the impression that the colony hoped to 
tire out the home government by a policy of delay. 
When for the third time the colony neglected the 
king's order in this matter, and in others also, the 
Lords of Trade became angry; charged Massachu- 
setts with sending ** frivolous, insufficient excuses" 
and ** insufficient pretences"; and in October, i68i, 
wrote that if she did not despatch her agents 
within three months they would order the vacation 
of the charter. Strange as it may seem, the colony 
delayed sending agents for four months, and then 
instructed them, in case the charter were called in 
question, to say that they had no instructions on 
that point.^ 

Behind all else lay the charge that the colony 
undermined the royal revenues. During 1676 and 
1677, complaints regarding illegal trade increased, 
and an important petition from the mercers and 
silk-weavers of London charged New England with 
depriving the ^ king of ;£6o,ooo a year. Immedi- 
ately an embargo was placed on New England 

> Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685, § 266. 
^ Ibid., 1675-1676, §§755. 1070. "86, 1677-1680, §§351, 
1028, 1681-1685, §§ 266, 416. 


trade, and Massachusetts, in her alarm, passed a 
law, October 10, 1677, enforcing the navigation 

With the appointment of Randolph as collector, 
surveyor, and searcher of the king's customs, a new 
cause of irritation was created, and the colonists 
did not hesitate to abuse Randolph himself and to 
obstruct his business. How little they loved him 
may be inferred from the doggerel verse written in 
January, 1679, to greet him after a month's absence 
in New Hampshire: 

*' Welcome, Sr, welcome from ye easteme shore 
With a commission stronger than before 

To play the horse-leach; robb us of our fBeeces, 
To rend our land, and teare it all to pieces: 
Welcome now back againe." ' 

Randolph, in his turn, had no sympathy with 
the colonists, and was determined to do his duty 
as he saw it. The colonists hated him and deter- 
mined **to entertain him not with joy but grief." 
He hated the colonists, and as a connection of the 
Mason family, which had fought for twenty years 
the claim of Massachusetts to New Hampshire, he 
was prejudiced against them beforehand. Further- 
more, he was dependent for his salary and position 
on the good-will of those in office at home. He was 

* Ccd, of State Pap., Col, 1675-1676, §§ 880, 881, 898, 1677- 
1680, § 41 ; Toppan, Edward Randolph, I., 77 ; Mass. Col. Records, 

v.. 155- 

' Farmer and Moore, Historical Collections, III., 30-32. 

i679l NEW ENGLAND 261 

called upon to justify his employment both to the 
Masons and to the Lords of Trade, and the pity 
of it is that Massachusetts gave him many oppor- 
tunities to prove his usefulness. 

In the three years after Randolph's return to New 
England, in 1680, his complaints numbered at least 
twenty -nine. Of these, twenty -three deal with 
nothing except breaches of the navigation acts — 
all other questions seemed to him of less conse- 
quence. The Mason and Gorges difficulty was set- 
tled in 1679, when, by a decision of the Lords Chief- 
Justices of the King's Bench and Common Pleas 
and by a commission imder the great seal. New 
Hampshire was made a crown colony.* Maine, 
which Massachusetts had purchased of the heirs 
of Gorges in 1678, without the king's consent, was, 
by decision of the same judges, restored to its pro- 
prietary; but as there was some doubt regarding 
the legal assignment of the government, Charles IL, 
in June, 1679, took the province into his own hands, 
promising to pay Massachusetts the amount of the 
purchase money whenever her agents surrendered 
the title-deeds to the crown. Needless to say, this 
condition was never fulfilled.' 

Randolph's charges on trade may be divided into 
three groups: (i) He complained that the mer- 

* Mass. Hist. Soc., Collections, 3d series, VIII., 238-242. 

' Cat. of State Pap., Col., 1677-1680, § 1028; Journal of the 
Lords of Trade, III., 21; Rawlinson MSS., in Bod. Lib., A 321, 
f. 148. 


chants and shippers of New England carried on a 
constant and direct trade with foreign countries 
and exported thither forbidden commodities, neither 
giving bonds nor taking oaths; (2) he asserted 
that the magistrates and people connived at this 
illicit trade, making it impossible for the collector 
to get justice in the courts, where the juries always 
decided against the king; (3) and he charged that 
the colony, maintaining that it was not bound by 
the navigation acts of England, had usurped control 
of the business by erecting a naval office in 1681, 
which practically neutralized his own authority by 
keeping all fines and forfeitures for contraband 
goods, instead of dividing them between the in- 
former and the king. 

The lords believed what Randolph told them, 
the more so as Culpeper, of Virginia, and Cranfield, 
of New Hampshire, supported him. The commit- 
tee reported to the king that the government of 
Massachusetts was conducted without the slight- 
est regard for the authority or the revenue of the 
crown, ^ a charge which, in the eyes of the mer- 
cantilists, was a sufficient warrant for annulling 
the charter. 

The colony was threatened with the writ of quo 
warranto in 1681, and for two years Randolph con- 
tinued to urge its issue on every possible occasion. 
In 1682 the Massachusetts government was willing 

' Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685, {{ 147, 200, 264, 266, 
954, 1129. 

1683] NEW ENGLAND 263 

to submit on nearly every point in dispute. But 
in the mean time the Lords of Trade stiffened their 
demands and determined that, even though Mas- 
sachusetts should submit, her charter should be 
modified. Therefore, they warned the agents that 
if the colony would not instruct them to accept such 
modifications the king would "cause a quo war- 
ranto to be brought against the governor and com- 
pany for the abuse of their charter."* The time 
was critical. Charles IL was threatening mimici- 
pal and other corporations in England, and the 
agents, discouraged by the prospect, wrote to the 
colony that many of the English corporations had 
submitted and they feared that the colony would 
have to yield.' 

On June 12, 1683, judgment was filed against the 
charter of London; and on the next day the Privy 
Council ordered the attorney - general to bring a 
writ against the Massachusetts company," a writ 
which Randolph (in England at the time) was in- 
structed to serve upon the colony. Again time and 
distance saved the day. Randolph delivered the 
writ, but, delayed by accident and by the tactics 
of the obstructionist party in the colony, he was 

' Col. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685. § 559. See instructions to 
agents, Journal of the Lords of Trade, IV., 57-59 (omitted in 
the Calendar). 

' Mass. Hist. Soc., Collections, 4th series, VITT., 499. 

• Mass. Col. Records, V., 421, 422; Journal of the Lords of 
Trade, IV., 173-176; Col. of State Pap., Col., 1681 - 1685, 



unable to reach England again before the writ 

A second writ was issued but not sent. The 
council finally decided to bring a suit in the court 
of chancery upon a writ of scire facias, which, being 
against the corporation and not against the indi- 
vidual members, would require no delivery in the 
colony, and so not be affected by time and distance. 
On October 23, 1684, the court adjudged the patent 
forfeited,' and Massachusetts stood deprived of her 
J / charter. 

ff^ With the annulling of the charter of Massachu- 
* f setts the lords were confronted with a new problem. 
What form of government was ** fittest for the 
king's service in these parts?"* They had already 
made up their minds that no more proprietary 
colonies should be created; for when, in 1682, 
Robert Barclay asked for a grant of East New 
Jersey, and the earl of Doncaster for a grant of 
Florida, they refused, saying **that it was not 
convenient for his Majesty to constitute any new 
proprieties in America or to grant any further^ 
powers which may render the plantations less de- 
pendent on the crown." * 

Although they had already declared in 1684 that 

' Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685, §§ 1159, i54it 1566, 

' Toppan, Edward Randolph, I.. 243, 244; Mass. Hist. Soc., 

Collections, 4th series, II., 246-278. 

• Journal of the Lords of Trade, V., 21, 22. 

* Ibid., IV., 64. 

1 68s] NEW ENGLAND 265 

the charters of Connecticut and Rhode Island de- 
barred them from adding those colonies to Mass- 
achusetts, they went deliberately to work to ob- 
tain evidence whereon to base new writs of qiw 
warranto. Edward Randolph easily obtained suffi- 
cient information for them, and with almost no 
debate the decision was reached to annul the char- 
ters of these colonies, and to add them, as well as 
New York, the Jerseys, and Delaware, to the pro- 
posed ** dominion *' of New England. The plan for 
a g overnor-gener al of New England had been under 
consideration for at least eight years,* and was 
urged by Randolph and by various governors of 
New York. The Lords of Trade came to believe 
that it was prejudicial to the king's interest to 
have so many independent governments maintained 
** without a more immediate dependence on the 
crown.'' ' 

To carry out the new policy. Colonel Percy Kirke 
was already selected to be lieutenant and governor- 
general of the new dominion of New England. He 
had recently come back from Tangier, where his ex - 
periences had hardly prepared him for the govern- 
ment of a liberty-loving people like the stubborn 
inhabitants of Massachusetts. Randolph had wit 
enough to know that Kirke was not the proper man, 
and repeatedly said so in his appeals to the Lords 

> Nowell to Bull, September 26, 1676 (Mass. Hist. Soc., Col- 
lections, 4th series, VIII., 573). 

• Journal of the Lords of Trade , V., 163. 


of Trade and others ; * but Kirke was supported by 
Charles II., and his commission was actually drawn 
up when Charles died. James had other work for 
Kirke to do, and in his place selected Sir Edmund 
Andros, who was nominated governor of New 
England, May 16, 1686.' 

During the interval a temporary government had 
been put in force in Massachusetts, with Joseph 
Dudley as president and Randolph as secretary, 
and many members of the new council were taken 
from the old government. The new system differed 
in one striking particular from that established 
under the charter : the colony no longer possessed a 
representative assembly, and a clause authorizing 
such an^^isWIlbly was purposely struck out of 
Kirke' s commission, probably at the instigation of 
the duke of York. Even though the attorney- 
general declared that the colonists had the right 
**to consent to such laws and taxes as should be 
made or imposed on them," notwithstanding the 
forfeiture of the charter, James II. struck a sim- 
ilar clause out of Dudley's commission. An ad- 
miralty system was established in Massachusetts, 
and Dudley wrote in June, 1686, that he was pre- 
paring to carry out the navigation acts. More seri- 
ous still was the proposal to demand new patents 

' Toppan, Edward Randolph, I., 247, 248, 259, 261; N. E, 
Historical and Genealogical Register, XXXVIL, 269. 

'Mass. Hist. Soc, Collections, 5th series, IX., 145-152; 
Col, of State Pap., Col., 1685-1688, { 680. 

i686] NEW ENGLAND 267 

of land and to impose quit -rents upon grants 
of unoccupied territory/ June 15, 1686, for the 
first time an Episcopal church was established in 

The government thus erected did not include Con- 
necticut and Rhode Island. The Lords of Trade were 
far from sure whether charges against them could be 
obtained sufficient **to ground such a process on."" 
Nothing can be more censurable than the deliberate 
way in which the duke of York for his own ad-^ 
vantage went to work to destroy the independence 
of these colonies. Whatever the provocation from 
Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island had 
given none. James, whether as duke or king, had 
no appreciation of the term ** liberties of English- 
men," and he endeavored to destroy the corpora- 
tions in New England, in the interest of his revenues, 
with the same indifference he showed in manipulat- 
ing corporations in England in the interest of a 
Tory majority in Parliament. 

Hence, Randolph had no difficulty in finding 
** articles of high misdemeanor" against several 
colonies, and without discussion or delay the writs 
were issued. The stated reason was that the 
duke and the Lords of Trade had become con- 

» Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1681-1685, §§ 1928, 1953, 1685-1688, 
5 357 ; for the attorney-general's report, see Journal of the Lords of 
Trade.V. ,i93\ Toppan^Edward Randolph,! 1 30; IV., 81, 114, 115. 

' Foote, Annals of King's Chapel, I., 44. 

• Toppan, Edward Randolph, I., 244; Journal of the Lords 
of Trade, V., 22; N. Y, Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 340, 341. 


vixsced that tt was to the great and giuwiu^ I»cj> 
tidice of the king's affairs in tbe plazttatkm ^nd 
to ius costoms revenue in Englaiid that soc^ in. 
dependent government shoold co atum e to exist.* 
Randolph went to America with five writs in hs 
pocket — against Rhode Island, Connecticixt^ the two 
Jerseys, and Delaware. The first two he delivered 
soon after his arrival, recommending to the ccdooies 
immediate snbmission. Although the writs had 
expired before they were delivered, both cokxiies 
gave Randolph the impression that they would be 
willing to surrender their charters.' 

In the mean time matters did not run smoothly 
in Massachusetts under the temporary government. 
Dudley and Randolph did not work well together, 
the latter thinking the president too considerate 
of the "independent faction."* At the same time 
an opposition began to gather strength among the 
people. Ipswich, Rowley, and Wobum refused to 
obey the orders of the government, individuals ut- 
tered seditious words and were arrested and impris- 
oned, hatred of Randolph became everjrwhere mani- 
fest, and every possible obstacle was placed in his 
path. So serious had the situation become that 

' Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1685-1688, i 279; Toppan. Edward 
Randolph, I., 257, 258; A^. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 36a. 

* Ibid., 368, 386, 387; Conn. Col. Records, III., 352, 356; 
R. I. Col. Records, III., 190; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1685-1688, 

I 794. 

■ Toppan, Edward Randolph, IV., 161, i6a; Hutchinson, 
Hist, of Massachusetts Bay, I., 350, 351. 

i686] NEW ENGLAND 269 

Randolph was glad enough when, on December 
20, 1686, Andros finally reached Boston and took 
charge of the government as governor - general of 
the dominion of New England. 

The administration of Andros lasted from Decem- 
ber, 1686, to April, 1689, a period of two years and 
a half. During that time his efforts were directed 
to the one great task of erecting a firm, centralized 
government for his large territory, besides cultivating 
friendship with the Indians, securing his frontiers, 
and settling the internal organization according to 
his instructions. In this difficult and practically 
impossible undertaking he displayed the same qual- 
ities he had shown as governor of New York ; but 
he had a far more difficult people to deal with, 
and was himself much more out of touch with 
the principles and ideas that they represented than 
he had been with those of the majority of the 

The administration of Andros was throughout an 
attempt to unite and consolidate a number of self- 
governing colonies under the rule of a singleja^, 
and to govern them according to a system diamet- 
rically opposed to that previously in force. He 
had a better appreciation of the difficulties of the 
task than had his master, James II.; but as a 
soldier and subject it was his business not to use his 
own judgment but implicitly to obey the orders 
that had been given him. Hence, soon after his 
arrival he organized his government, quieted the 


disturbed people by friendly promises to uphold 
their interests, and took meastires to strengthen 
the fortifications around Boston. 

The next step was to write to Ptymouth, Rhode 
Island, and Connecticut, bidding them surrender 
and accept annexation. Plymouth and Rhode 
Island submitted, and sent representatives to sit in 
Andros's council in December.* On January 12, 
1687, Andros dissolved the Rhode Island govern- 
ment, broke the seal of the colony, changed the ad- 
ministration to that of an English county, and ad- 
mitted seven of the inhabitants to his legislative 
council.' The Connecticut authorities, upon whom 
Randolph had served a second writ, December 28, 
1686, replied that they had sent a letter to the 
king begging to be allowed to remain as they were. 
This letter, which was ambiguously worded, left 
the impression upon the minds of the Lords of 
Trade that the colony was ready to surrender if the 
king insisted; and consequently they recommended 
to the king that Andros be instructed to signify 
*'his Majesty's good liking and acceptance of their 
dutiful submission" and to take them tmder his 

The king's order to this effect, signed at Windsor, 

* Toppan, in Amer. Antiq. Soc., Proceedings, October, 1899, 
p. 342. 

* R. I. Col. Records., III., 219. 

* Mass. Hist. Soc., Collections, 4th series, II., 297; Journal 
of the Lords of Trade, VI., 69; Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1685-1688. 
§§ 1321. 1534; Conn. Col. Records, III., 377, 378. 

1687] NEW ENGLAND 271 

June 27, 1687, did not reach Andros until October 
18. Soon after its receipt the governor, who had 
held off because he knew perfectly well that the 
colony had not submitted/ wrote to Governor 
Treat announcing his purpose of visiting Hartford. 
October 26, he left Boston, met the Connecticut 
court called in special session on November i, and 
read his own commission and the king's special 
order.' He dissolved the government, erected a 
coxmty organization, appointed judicial and military 
officers, and admitted Connecticut representatives 
into his council. The colony was thus annexed to 
the dominion of New England, but it never sur- 
rendered its charter, tradition having it that the 
instrument was spirited away and' hidden in an 
oak-tree, ' and that the colony was never deprived 
of it by any legal process. 

The enlargement of the dominion of New Eng- 
land by the annexation of Connecticut and Rhode 
Island was but preliminary to a larger union of all 
the colonies from Delaware Bay to Nova Scotia. 
Such a plan had been decided on as early as March, 
1686, on the ground that for defence against the 
French and Indians one government was better 

^ R. 1. Col. Records, III., 224. 

' Bulkeley, Will and Doom (Conn. Hist. Soc, Collections, 
III., 137-142); Toppan, Edward Randolph, II., 45, 46; Sewall, 
Diary, I., 193. 

•Trumbull, }Iist. of Conn., I., 390; Bates, in Encyclopedia 
Americana, art. "Charter Oak " ; Hoadly, in Acorn Club, Publica- 
tions, No. 2, 1900. 


than ten;* but not until July 3, 1688, was the 
commission to Andros issued whichx constituted 
him captain-general and govemor-in-chief of all 
that tract of land from forty degrees north latitude 
to the St. Croix and St. Lawrence rivers and 
westward to the South Sea, Pennsylvania and 
Delaware only excepted.' August 11, Andros vis- 
ited the newly annexed territory of NciV York and 
received from Dongan the seals of office. He 
published his authority in the Jerseys, visited 
Albany and the Five Nations, and solemnized the 
birth of the prince of Wales, news of which event 
he received from Boston." Having appointed 
Francis Nicholson deputy governor of New York, 
he returned to Boston, and soon after journeyed 
to Pemaquid, where he made careful inquiry into 
the conditions of his frontiers.* 

' Toppan, Edward Randolph, IV., 216. 

' Journal of the Lords of Trade, VI., 142; A^. V. Docs. Rel. 
to Col. Hist., III., 537. 

* Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1685-1688, §§1877, 1895. 1901; 
N. Y. Docs. Rel.toCol. Hist., III., 550-554; N.J. Archives, II., 26. 

* Toppan, Edward Randolph, IV., 239-243. 


• ' • 

• • • • 

• "•• . * 

• • 




WHILE James II. was thus consolidating the 
royal power in America he was destroying it 
in England. A long course of arbitrary acts cul- 
minated in the attempt to ** dispense" with the 
effect of acts of Parliament in April, 1688. A body 
of nobles wanted William of Orange, nephew and 
son-in-law of James, to take the throne; he landed 
in England November 5 ; James quitted the king- 
dom December 22; and in February, 1689, Parlia- 
ment offered the crown to William and his wife Mary, 
daughter of James. This revolution did much more 
than to overturn James II. : it set aside the doctrine 
of the divine right of kings and substituted the 
authority of Parliament for the royal prerogative; 
it demonstrated the right of the people to resist 
the claims and demands of their rulers, when these 
demands went counter to the needs and the con- 
stitutional privileges of their subjects ; and it marked 
the close of a long period of constitutional reor- 
ganization which had begun with the reforms of the 
Long Parliament in 1641. 

VOL. V. — 18 273 


The English revolution, even in its widest aspect, 
was not the cause of the movements in America, 
but it often gave shape to the action of the colonists 
and direction to their efforts. Local causes were 
always operative: fears of the French and Indians, 
rumors of Roman Catholic conspiracies, and tales 
of governmental plots spread with remarkable 
rapidity; they seized upon the imaginations of 
the colonists, and provoked action long before the 
news that William of Orange had landed reached 
any of the colonies. The earliest, the boldest, and 
the completest of these local revolutions was in 

In 1687 Andros undertook to establish his new 
dominion at his seat of government, Boston. The 
system as defined m his commission was strictly 
feudal and autocratic. As governor he was com- 
mander-in-chief, vice-admiral, and dispenser of 
pardons; and with the advice and consent of his 
council he could make laws and impose taxes, erect 
courts, administer justice, grant lands, and collect 
quit-rents. These were royal powers which in the 
hands even of a tactful and conciliatory man would 
have aroused opposition in democratic New Eng- 
land. In the hands of Andros, who was a soldier 
and disciplinarian, a man faithful to duty and accus- 
tomed to command, an obedient subject who con- 
sidered the orders of the king of more importance 
than the wishes of the people, they led to revolution. 

The men of Massachusetts, needing to justify 


their action, and failing to realize that the revolution 
was a conflict between two irreconcilable systems 
of government, held Andros guilty of injustice, 
tyranny, and abuse. They charged him with having 
governed arbitrarily and in excess of his powers. 
They said that he demanded new patents of land 
and imposed quit-rents payable to the king; that 
he deprived the people of their liberties in making 
laws and imposing taxes without their consent; 
that he allowed a faction to control the government, 
knowing that it would oppress the colony; that he 
authorized tyrannical and illegal laws ; that his ad- 
ministration of justice was oppressive and unjust; 
that he and his friends made themselves rich by 
illegal exactions, fines, and fees ; that he endeavored 
to deprive the colony of religious liberty and was a 
conspirator in a ** popish plot, '* and that his acts as 
vice-admiral brought misery upon the province and 
stifled trade.* 

A critical study of the acts of Andros in the light 
of his instructions shows that these adversaries 
grossly exaggerated the burdens of the govern- 
ment, and that Andros gave to Massachusetts a 
better administration than that of Maryland or Vir- 
ginia. Andros did not go beyond his orders. Bluff, 
impatient, and hot-tempered he often was, but he 
was neither brutal nor oppressive nor beyond the 

Indeed, there is not one of these charges that may 

' Whitmore, Andros Tracts, I., passim. 


not be disproved altogether or shown to be based 
on a legitimate attempt of the governor to cany out, 
unwisely it may be, the orders of the king. For 
example, the allegations that the writs were oppres- 
sive is vague and unsubstantial and will not stand 
the test of comparison with the facts. The claim 
that the colonists were illegally deprived of the 
privileges of the Habeas Corpus act is not justified, 
inasmuch as the act had no application to the 
colonies;* the belief that Andros was engaged in 
a Roman Catholic conspiracy was part of that 
general suspicion prevalent throughout all the colo- 
nies, notably in New York, Maryland, and Virginia, 
that the royal and proprietary governors were 
planning to call in the French and Indians to over- 
throw the Protestants;^ and a reflection from the 
corresponding fear in England that was aroused by 
the tales of Titus Oates. 

Whsit bore most heavily upon the colonists was 
not the enforcement of the navigation acts, as Ran- 
dolph would have us believe, but the loss of a rep- 
resentative assembly. As early as August, 1687, 
Ipswicn and 'ropsfield refused to pay taxes levied 
without their consent, and later Andover did the 
same. Individuals who declared that the existing 
situation was one of slavery were called to account 
for seditious utterances.* Others, objecting to a 

'Carpenter, in Amer. Hist. Review^ VIII., ai. 

' Toppan, Edward Randolph, IV., 264, 265. 

• Cal. of State Pap., Col., 1685-1688, §§ 1447, 1534. iv., v. 


government deprived of the representative princi- 
ple, and to all laws of whatever character that were 
not made by the people, petitioned the king for an 
assembly, but without result.* 

With the issue of the new commission in 1688, 
the news of the birth of the prince of Wales, and 
the rumor in the spring of 1689 that James II. 
had taken flight, the excitement in Boston steadily 
increased. Since Andros had proclaimed widely the 
news of the prince's birth, he roused suspicion by 
endeavoring to suppress the declaration of the 
prince of Orange.* The agitation spread. ^ The 
general buzzing among the people, '* of which An- 
dros wrote to BrockhoUs, soon grew into a revolt. 
April 18, 1689, the inhabitants of Boston rose 
against the government, seized the fort, castle, and 
king's frigate, imprisoned Andros, and sent Ran- 
dolph to the common jail. **We have been quiet, 
hitherto," was their declaration, **but now [that] 
the Lord has prospered the undertaking of the 
prince of Orange, we think we should follow such 
an example. We, therefore, seize the vile persons 
who oppressed us.** ' 

The insurgents established a council, with Brad- 
street, the former governor, as its president; and 
on May 24, following the example of the English 

* Hutchinson, Hist, of Massachusetts Bay, I., 362, n. 

^Andros Tracts, I., 75-79, II., 194; Toppan, Edward Ran- 
dolph, v., 57. 

•Toppan, Edward Randolph, IV., 271-281; Cal. of State 
Pap., Col., 1689-1692, §§ 152, 196, 261. 

rt-.ji-j. --t.- 


revolutionists, they summoned a convention, and 
re-established the government according to the old 
charter. With the arrival of a vessel from England 
on May 26, bearing orders for the proclamation of 
William and Mary, all danger was over. The joy 
of the people was intense, for the revolution had 
been bloodless, as had been that in England. 

Connecticut and Rhode Island, on hearing of the 
revolution in England, resimied their charter gov- 
ernments and restored their organization as it had 
been before the arrival of Andros. This act was 
upheld by legal opinion in England on the ground 
that the charters, having never been surrendered, 
remained good and valid in law; and that the 
corporations, notwithstanding their submission to 
the authority of Andros,* had a perfect right to 
execute again the powers and privileges that had 
originally been granted them. None of the many 
attempts made afterwards to invalidate their char- 
ters proved successful. 

Massachusetts was, however, to suffer for her 
former stubbornness and excessive caution. Even 
while Andros was in power, the agent of the colony, 
Increase Mather, tried to persuade King James to 
restore the charter. The king replied with fair 
words, promising a ** Magna Charta of Liberty"; 

* Conn. Col. Records, III., 250-253; R. I. Col. Records, III., 
257; Mass. Hist. Soc, Collections, 5th series, IX., 175; Hutchin- 
son, Hist, of Massachusetts Bay, I., 406, 407; Cal. of State Pap.^ 
Col., 1689-1692, § 746. 


but nothing further was done. From time to time 
rumors came to the colony that the old charter was 
to be restored ; and the attorney-general, Sir Thomas 
Powys, a very fair-minded man, raised hopes by 
stating that the charter had been illegally vacated.* 
Yet, notwithstanding every effort of Massachusetts, 
William III. took the ground that the government 
under the old charter had been insubordinate; and 
when in 1 69 1 a revised charter was granted, it created 
a government of the type of New York or New Jer- 
sey, instead of the old, popular government. 

In Maryland the beginning of the storm came 
in the autumn and winter of 1688, when reports 
of an Indian attack became current ; and many be- 
gan to believe once more that the Jesuits were in 
league with the French and Indians to massacre 
the Protestants. For a time excitement ran high, 
notably on the Eastern Shore; and it was only 
after strenuous efforts by those who knew the false- 
ness of the rumors that the terrors were allayed.' 
Scarcely was this crisis passed, when new reports 
spread regarding the policy of the proprietary. In 
December came the flight of James II., and in Feb- 
ruary, 1689, William and Mary became sovereigns 
of England. 

After the receipt of the news in the colony, 
weeks passed before any proclamation of the new 

^ CaL of State Pap., Col., 1689 -1692, §152; Hutchinson, 
Hist, of Massachusetts Bay, I., 373; Andros Tracts, III., 130. 
' Henry Darnell's narrative {Md. Archives ^ VIII., 156). 


king and queen was made in Maryland. Baltimore, 
it seems, had sent the necessary instructions, but 
the orders never reached the province/ The delay, 
for which Baltimore was in no way responsible, 
gave strength to the rumor that he did not intend 
to proclaim the new sovereigns, but was planning to 
make Maryland a Roman Catholic colony by force. 
The people believed that Governor Joseph, who did 
not dare act without authority, was concealing his 
orders for purposes of his own; and so great was 
the excitement that Colonel Spencer, of Virginia, 
wrote to William Blathwayt, secretary of the Privy 
Council and auditor general, prophesying an up- 
rising of the people and the proclamation of Will- 
iam and Mary * ' to the entire disorganization of the 
government." ^ 

Such was the situation in the spring and summer 
of 1689: the proprietary was absent, irritating con- 
flicts were taking place in the assembly, and a plot 
was brewing against the government. The revolu- 
tion in England, which drove a Roman Catholic 
from the throne, gave to the hostile Protestant 
faction in Maryland a precedent and an example 
for revolutionary action. 

In April, 1689, an association was formed, with 
John Coode at its head, for the purpose of defend- 
ing the Protestant religion and asserting the right of 

* The messenger died at Plymouth. See Md. Archives ^ 
XIII., 113, 114. 

^ Ibid.t 112; Cal, of State Pap., Cot., 1689-1692, § 92. 


William and Mary to the province of Maryland. 
Coode began to raise an armed force on the Poto- 
mac,* and was joined by Jowles, colonel of the 
militia, Blakiston, collector of customs, and Chesel- 
dyne, speaker of the assembly. The rebels hav- 
ing seized St. Mary's and captured the records on 
July 27, issued a proclamation in which they de- 
fended their course and presented a large number 
of grievances framed for revolutionary purposes.' 
August I , Coode attacked and took Mattapany fort. 
Lord Baltimore's residence, where lay the leaders 
of the proprietary party, and with this capture 
of the headquarters came into possession of the 
government. The leaders at once despatched an 
address to William and Mary, couched in terms of 
fulsome flattery, laying the province at their feet; 
they issued summons for the election of an assembly, 
and on September 10 proclaimed the new sovereigns. 
The Maryland revolution was complete. 

Baltimore made zealous eflorts to recover his 
province, but was entirely imsuccessful. The new 
Lords of Trade were determined to adopt the policy 
of their predecessors, and in the interest of trade 
and military defence to bring all the colonies into a 
closer . dependence upon the crown.* The Lords 
having no special reason to favor Baltimore, they 

* Henry Dameirs narrative (Md. Archives, VIII., 156). 

* Ibid., 101-107; Steiner, Revolution of i68g, 299-302; 
Sparks, 102-107. 

* Col, of State Pap., Col., 1 689-1 692, §§ 102, 124. 



listened with patience to the presentation of both 
sides of the case; and King William, desiring a 
settled government in the colonies as well as 
at home, was naturally friendly to the Protes- 

Just at this point the situation was rendered 
worse for Baltimore by the murder of John Payne, 
collector of customs and a prominent member of the 
association in Maryland, by the sailors of Sewall, 
Baltimore's step-son. The king and his council had 
every reason to think that Baltimore's party was 
the aggressor, and this belief gave weight to the list 
of grievances that the association sent to be laid 
before the king.' 

Though no legal proceedings were instituted 
against Baltimore's charter; and though Baltimore 
himself was never formally deprived of his province, 
the result for the time being was the practical loss 
of the charter. The king, reserving to Baltimore 
his revenue and land titles unimpaired, took the 
government into his own hands, and sent over 
Copley as governor, with orders to investigate the 
situation and to report to the Lords of Trade. 
Copley arrived in Maryland, and on April 9, 1692, 
opened the first assembly under the royal govern- 
ment. He made no investigation of the rights of 
the case and sent no report. The question was not 
again brought up for discussion by the English 

^ Md. Archives^ VIII., 163, 219-220, 241-262, 307-312; Col, 
of State Pap., Col,, 1689-1692, ( 1206. 


authorities, but for a quarter of a century Maryland 
remained a royal province. 

In New York the effect of the English revolu- 
tion was even more picturesque and dramatic 
than in Maryland. Though no democratic insti- 
tutions had been recognized by the royal proprie- 
tary, the prevailing discontent was so active as to 
render it certain that the English colonists in the 
city and adjacent counties would take an early ad- 
vantage of every dilemma in which the king might 
find himself. 

For a few months after the appointment of 
Nicholson, in 1688, matters went smoothly, and 
negotiations with the Indians formed the most im- 
portant part of the duties of the deputy governor. 
Then came rumors of the revolution in England; 
in April, 1689, the report that Andros had been 
seized and imprisoned in Bostoa. Finally word 
was brought that Louis XIV. had declared war on. 
England, and that the French were preparing a new 
invasion of colonial territory. New York and the 
adjoining towns at once revealed their latent dis- 
like of the royal government. The towns of east- 
em Long Island, and likewise those of Queens and 
Westchester coimties, drove out the king's officers 
and set up others of their own.' Eastern Long 
Island demanded that the forts should be placed 
in the hands of such men as they could trust, 
and the militia of New York drew up a loyal ad- 

* N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 575. 


dress to the new sovereigns. Nicholson, in lack 
of oflScial orders to proclaim William and Mary, 
hesitated, and contented himself with summoning 
the cotmcil, city magistrates, and officers of the 
militia to consult "how best to allay the uproar 
and rebellion." * 

Tactful and conciliatory measures at this jtmcture 
might have calmed the people, but Nicholson lost 
his temper and gave utterance to words that stirred 
the people to wrath.^ In May, 1689, the rumor 
spread that he was going to bum the city and that 
the inhabitants were to be "sold, betrayed, and 
murdered." Led by a German merchant, Jacob 
Leisler, a man of energy and ability, but rash in 
action and careless of the means employed, a faction 
of the people seized the fort and refused to obey 
their legally constituted authorities. The uprising 
in New York, like that in Maryland, was directed, 
ostensibly, at least, against the "papists"; and 
there is reason to think the Maryland movement 
served as an incentive to the New-Yorkers.* On 
June 10, Nicholson foolishly deserted his post, took 
ship for England, and left the government in the 
hands of three of the council — Phillips, Cortlandt, 
and Bayard. Leisler, disregarding their authority, 
summoned a convention composed of delegates from 

» N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III.. 587, 591. 

* Cortlandt to Andros, ibid., 594; CaL of State Pap,, Col., 
1689-1692, § 190. 

* Doc. Hist, of New York (octavo ed.), II., 2$, 31, 42, 


seven of the counties, which in its turn appointed 
him captain of the fort and commander-in-chief of 
the* province with almost dictatorial powers.* 

Notwithstanding this commission Leisler desired 
a more legal warrant for his position, and an oppor- 
tunity to obtain one soon came: for on December 
II, 1689, orders arrived from King William, author- 
izing Nicholson, or in his absence **such as for 
the time being take care for preserving the peace," 
to assimie the full governorship of the province; 
Leisler seized the doctmient and claimed that it 
applied to him. With this order as his commission 
he established a government for the city, appointed 
justices, sheriffs, clerks, collectors, and officers of 
the militia. He beat down all opposition, and though 
upheld by only a minority of the people, was able 
to overawe the remainder. Albany at first refused 
to recognize his authority, but finally yielded, in 
March, 1690, because of Indian troubles.^ 

The English government received early informa- 
tion of the rebellion, but the Lords of Trade were 
involved in a multitude of vexatious problems 
connected with the colonies, and had in their hands 
the appointment of at least six new colonial govern- 
ors. Yet they acted promptly and with wisdom, 
and in August, 1689, recommended that a governor 

* Doc. Hist, of New York (octavo ed.)» II. 1 11, 2$. 

» N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III.. 606; Doc. Hist, of New 
York, II., 45. 51, S3, 56. 65. 66. 77-79, 97-99. ^oS, 117. 120, lai, 
xa7, 128, I4S, 148, 150-154, i79-i8a, 291, 347-354, 3^9. 430- 


be selected at once, and that troops be sent to over- 
throw the rebellion. In September the king com- 
missioned Henry Sloughter as governor, and au- 
thorized the raising of two companies of troops. 
Partly because of confusions in the admiralty of- 
fice and partly because of deliberate intention (so 
Sloughter believed), the expedition was delayed 
month after month till November 12, 1690, while 
the Lords of Trade and the enemies of Leisler con- 
tinually urged the importance of speedy departure. 
Though the troops reached the city in February, 
Leisler refused to yield to Ingolsby, their captain, 
and Sloughter did not arrive in New York till March 
16, 1691/ 

On his arrival, however, Leisler surrendered, and 
in May was tried, and, with his son-in-law, Milbome, 
was sentenced to be hanged. Sloughter, to his 
shame be it said, signed the death-warrant, and the 
sentence was carried out.' Leisler was no traitor; 
he was loyal to his sovereigns; and though he had 
been the chief actor in a rebellion, he had done so 
believing that he was upholding a righteous cause. 
His methods were tyrannical and his government 
was often unnecessarily harsh, but he was no more 
deserving of death than were his compatriots in 
Massachusetts and Maryland. 

» Cal. of State Pap., Col, 1689-1692. §§ 395. 399. 451, 887, 
891, 89a, 897, 939, 1013, 1020, 1040, 1076, p. 429, 1465; AT. y. 
Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 761. 

^ Doe. Hist, of New York, II.. 372-382, 386. 433, 434. 


After Leisler's rebellion and the change of sov- 
ereigns in England, a continuance of arbitrary gov- 
ernment in New York was impossible. By his 
commission, Sloughter was instructed to summon 
an assembly of the freeholders, who were to join 
with governor and council in the making of laws.* 
April 9, 1 69 1, the first assembly tmder the new 
commission met, and on May 13 passed an act 
"declaring what are the rights and privileges of 
their Majesties* subjects in New York." This act 
was practically a duplicate of the charter of 1683, 
except that it called for annual instead of triennial 
elections, defined a freeholder as one possessing 
forty shillings a year in freehold, and disfranchised 
Roman Catholics. Strangely enough, this statute, 
less liberal than that which the duke of York 
had approved, was annulled by the Protestant 
William on the ground that it granted **too great 
and unreasonable privileges."" ' Though from this 
time forward New York possessed representative 
government, the rights and privileges of the people 
in their assemblies remained undefined, and the 
struggle for free press and free speech continued | 
for a quarter of a century longer. _^jU-r' 

' A^. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 624; Colonial Laws of 
New York, I., 221. 

* Colonial Laws of New York, I., 244-248; N. Y, Docs. Rel, 
to Col. Hist., IV., 263, 264. 





\ I 




THE number of the colonists in 1689 may be esti- 
mated at from two hundred thousand to two 
hundred and fifty thousand, variously distributed: 
New Hampshire contained about five thousand in- 
habitants; Massachusetts, including Plymouth and 
Maine, fifty thousand ; Rhode Island, four thousand ; 
Connecticut, between seventeen and twenty thou- 
sand; New York, between eighteen and twenty 
thotisand; East New Jersey, somewhat fewer than 
ten thousand; West New Jersey, four thousand; 
Pennsylvania and Delaware, twelve thousand ; Mary- 
land, thirty thousand; Virginia, between fifty and 
sixty thousand; North Carolina, between two and 
three thousand ; and South Carolina not more than 
three thousand. 

The territory thus occupied extended for about a 
thousand miles from Pemaquid to Charles Town, for 
the colonists passed but short distances back from 
the ocean, and then chiefly along the navigable 
rivers. Between adjoining colonies, even in 1689, 
boundaries were largely imdefined, and, except where 


1689] SOCIAL LIFE 289 

rivers determined the line of division, were destined 
to be a source of perplexity and trouble, in some 
instances for a century to come. Territorial claims 
growing out of conflicting royal grants continued to 
offer to the colonists difficult and vexatious prob- 
lems that could be solved only by compromise and 
agreement; and unfortunately in some cases the 
mutual good will essential to such a solution was 

In the main the settlers were of English stock. 
New England was ethnically almost homogeneous, 
though' a few French Huguenots, Scots-Irish, and 
Jews were found scattered among her people. In 
New York more than half the inhabitants were 
Dutch, the remainder English and French, the 
former largely predominating^ and a sufficient num- 
ber of Jews to warrant the building of a synagogue.* 
New Jersey was largely English, though there were 
many Scots, Dutch, and French living here and 
there in the towns and plantations. West New 
Jersey contained many Swedes and Dutch as well 
as English; and Pennsylvania was a composite of 
Finns, Swedes, Dutch, Germans, Scots, Welsh, and 
English. Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina 
were settled by Englishmen only; South Carolina, 
on the other hand, a colony of one city, had already 
begun to show diversity of stocks, and though in 
large part settled by Englishmen, included French- 

* Miller, Description of New York, 31, 37; Lodwick. '* Account 
of New York," Shane MSS., in British Museum, 3339, f. 252. 

VOL.V.— 1© 


men and Scots among its inhabitants. Not tmtil 
the next century, however, did the immigration 
of Swiss, Scots-Irish, and German palatines into 
South Carolina begin in earnest. 

This population • was made up of free settlers, 
bond servants, and slaves, though bondage and 
slavery played a very small part in New England, 
where the economic conditions were unfavorable 
to such labor. Still, Randolph could report two 
hundred slaves there in 1676,* and we know that, 
notwithstanding the Quaker protest against the 
slave-trade in Rhode Island, Newport was the 
receiving and disbursing centre for most of the 
negroes who were brought from Guinea and Mada- 
gascar.' In New York slaves were used chiefly 
as body - servants and for domestic purposes, 
and Coxe mentions four in West New Jersey in 

Even in the South the economic importance of 
slavery was as yet hardly recognized, and though 
there were ma^y slaves in Maryland, Virginia, and 
South Carolina, they did not form the indispensable 
laboring class that they afterwards became. Berke- 
ley, writing in 1671, said that there were forty thou- 
sand persons in Virginia, of whom two thousandJ^ere 
** black slaves" and six thousand "ChristJOT ser- 
vants"; and that in the preceding seven years but 
two or three ships of negroes had come to the 

' Hutchinson Papers , XL, 219. 

• Amer. Antiq. Soc., Proceedings, October, 1887, p. iii. 

1689] SOCIAL LIFE 291 

colony.* Yet the numbers increased rapidly, and 
towards the end of the century a planter, stocking 
a new plantation, was able to draw his supply 
from the colony itself.' 

/During the seventeenth century in the south, 
white servants were preferred to the negroes as 
laborers] and Berkeley could say that fifteen hundred 
came every year to Virginia. Many were Irish and 
Scottish, but the great mass of the servants was 
English. They came to America under the in- 
denture or redemption system, according to which 
servants boimd themselves to work for a certain 
number of years, generally from four to six, on the 
lands or in the houses of the masters who advanced 
money to pay the shipmasters for their passage.] 
This practice became one of the most efficient 
aids to colonization in the seventeenth century, 
and thousands of settlers came to America imder 
this obligation to labor. The New-Englanders had 
few servants, except on hired wages,' but they 
experimented with Indians, who proved very in- 
efficient as laborers and servants, being not only 
inapt but unwilling. 

Writers differ somewhat in their estimates of the 
servant's life in America. Bankers and Sluyter, 
the Labadist missionaries, strongly prejudiced 

* Berkeley's Answers to Queries, in Public Record Office, 
Colonial Papers, XXVI., No. 77, i. 

* Bruce, Econ. Hist, of Virginia, XL, 87, 88. 
■ Hutchinson Papers, II., 219. 


against the practice, spoke in terms of severe con- 
demnatiori of the ''planter's avarice, which must be 
fed and sustained by the bloody sweat of their poor 
slaves." * But other accoimts are more favorable. 
Alsop, himself an indentured servant, believed that 
the position was less grievous than that of the or- 
dinary apprentice in England.' Hammond says 
that servants were not put to *' so hard or continu- 
ous labor as husbandmen and handicraftsmen were 
obliged to perform in England. . . . Little or noth- 
ing is done," he adds, **in winter time, none ever 
work before sunrising or after sunset. In the sum- 
mer they rest, sleep, or exercise themselves five 
hours in the heat of the day; Saturday afternoon 
is always their own, the old holidays are observed, 
and the Sabbath spent in good exercise."* G. L., 
writing from West New Jersey, confirms this account 
when he says that ' ' servants work here, not so much 
by a third as they do in England, and I think feed 
much better, for they have beef, pork, bacon, pud- 
ding, milk, butter, fish, and fruit more plentiful than 
in England, and good beer and syder." * 

However hard the servant's life may have been, 
there was always the expectation of serving their 
time and becoming hired laborers at two shillings 
or two shillings and sixpence a day. Some of the 

* Dankers and Sluyter, Journal, 191, 192. 

' Alsop, Character of the Province of Maryland, chap. iii. 
■ Hammond, Leah and Rachel, 12. 

* ** Quaker's Accoimt of New Jersey," Rawlinson MSS,, in 
Bod. Lib., D 810, f. 55. 


1689] SOCIAL LIFE 293 

best of the later colonists, particularly in the south, 
traced their descent to industrious indentured ser- 
vants who "crept** out of their condition/ got good 
estates of cattle, houses, and servants of their own, 
and became husbandmen and freeholders.* 

During the period from 1650 to 1690 the colonists 
gained steadily in the conveniences and comforts 
of living/ Food and shelter were easily obtainable, 
and in the large towns even luxury prevailed to a 
small extent. There was sometimes serious suffering 
from the miseries of Indian attacks, the frequency 
of serious sickness, and in the north the inclemency 
of the winter. In South Carolina many of the new- 
comers complained of tha miseries of chills and 
fever — "seasoning** they called it; and in Mary- 
land and Virginia there was a good deal of pov- 
erty owing to the flucttiations of the tobacco crop. 
Moryson, speaking for Virginia in 1676, said that the 
"better sort*' lived on poultry, hogs, and what deer 
and fowl their servants could kill for them. They 
drank, though "this not common,** beer and ale.' 

Thomas Newe, in 1682, foimd the people of Charles 
Town drinking molasses and water, and learned 
that no ipalt up to that time had been made in 
the colony.* In the Jerseys beer was a common 

* "Quaker's Account of New Jersey " Rawlinson Af55., in 
Bod. Lib., D 810, f. 55; Hammond, Leah and Rachel, 14; Wil- 
son, Account of Carolina (Carroll, Hist. Collections, II., 24). 

' Moryson 's ''Answers," Rawlinson A/SS., in Bod. Lib., A 
185, f. 256. 

■ Mewe to his father, May 17, 1682, ibid., D 810, f. 53. 


drink, and we hear occasionally of brew-houses, and 
meet with requests sent to England for brewers. 
Cider was used chiefly in the middle and northern 
colonies, and occasionally brandy and wines were 
obtainable, when vessels from the West Indies and 
Canaries came to the colonies. 

The ''ordinary sort" of people in Virginia, Mary- 
land, and Delaware lived on Indian coni, **a grain 
of general use to man and beast." **They beat it in 
a mortar," says a traveller, *'and get the husks from 
it, and then boyle it with a piece of beef or salted 
pork with some kidney-beans, which is much like 
to pork and pease at sea, but they call it hommony." 
The people ate also bread made of the same com, 
ground by hand, for grist-mills, common in New 
England, were scarce in the southern colonies; and 
raised a few vegetables, often of the coarsest kind.* 
Cook describes the planter's home in Maryland in 
words that may well be based on experience : 

*' So after hearty Entertainment, 
Of Drink and victuals without Pa5nnent; 

For Planters* Tables, you must know, 

Are free for all that come and go. 
While Pon and Milk, with Mush well stoar'd, 
In wooden Dishes grac'd the Board; 

With Homine and Syder-pap, 

(Which scarce a hungry Dog wou'd lap) 
Well stuflfd with Fat, from Bacon fry'd, 
Or with Molassus dulcify 'd." ' 

* Moryson's ''Answers," Rawlinson MSS., in Bod. Lib., A 185, 
f. 256; Dankers and Sluyter, Journal, 217, 218; Sloane MSS., in 
British Museum, 2291, f. i. 

' Cook, SoUWeed Factor (Md. Hist. Soc, Fund Publications 
No. 36), 4. 

1689] SOCIAL LIFE 295 

( In South Carolina the conditions were better, \ 
and Wilson assures us that while thpse living near 
the marshes were subject to ague, settlers on the 
higher ground did very well. He says that the 
soil was fertile /and produced good com, excellent 
pasture, wheat, rye, barley, oats, pease, and garden 
vegetables in large variety ; that cattle, sheep, horses, 
and other animals were easily raised, while negroes 
thrived better than in the north and required fewer 
clothes, which, as he naively remarks, ''is a great 
charge saved." * Thomas Newe's letters to his 
father give a favorable view of the colony, and are 
especially valuable as the unbiased impressions of 
a new-comer. *'The soil," he writes, '*is generally 
very light, but apt to produce whatever is put into 
it. There are already all sorts of English fruit and 
garden herbs, besides many others I never saw in 
England." He thinks that the colony is in very 
good condition, considering the fact that most of 
the first settlers were ** tradesmen, poor and wholly 
ignorant of husbandry, and till of late but very few 
in number, so that their whole business was to 
clear a little groimd to get bread for their families, 
few of them having wherewithal to purchase a 

« As for prices, Newe thought things dear in 
Cliarles Town : milk, 2d. a quart ; beef, ^d. a pound ; 
pork, 3d. a potmd, **but far better than our Eng- 
lish" ; ' and he attributes these prices to the fact that 

* Wilson, in Carroll, Hist. Collections, IL, 26, 27. 


" cattle sold so well to new-comers that the planters 
,8aved none for killing," being furnished by the 

/Indians with fowl, fish, and venison **for a trifle." * ^ 
G. L. shows that prices were a little lower in West 
New Jersey, and quotes pork at 2^d. a pound, 
beef and venison id. a pound, a fat buck 55. or 65., 
Indiai com at 25. 6d. a bushel, oats 2s., and barlev 
25.' By witness of all, money was very scarce, 
payment being made in natural products, or oc- 

'casionally in Spanish coin, receivable in England 
at four or five shillings less in the pound than in 
the colonies. 

In Pennsylvania, New York, and New England 
the standard of living was higher than in Maryland 
and Virginia, for the attention of the colonists was 
not absorbed in the cultivation of tobacco to the 
neglect of other staple products of the soil. Many 
fruits and vegetables were raised, and others were 
found growing in the woods; cows, sheep, goats, hogs, 
as well as geese and chickens, were easily cared for ; 
and in the large cities of the north, and of the south 
as well, colonial products, such as cloves, pepper, 
and other spices, could be found, brought from 
England or the West Indies. In many of the col- 
onies, notably South Carolina, Maryland, and the 
Jerseys, oysters were obtainable in large quanti- 
ties from the river mouths and inlets, and every- 

* Newe to his father, Rawlinson MSS., in Bod. Lib., D 810, 

ff- 53. 54- 

* ** Quaker's Account of New Jersey," ibid., £.55. 

1689] SOCIAL LIFE 297 

where fish was plentiful, and venison was easily 
procured, i 

1 Houses were at first of logs ; later frame buildings, 
clfitpboarded and shingled, were erected^ In West 
New Jersey, says G. L., **the poorer sort set up a 
house of two or three rooms themselves in this 
manner. Their walls are cloven timber about 
three inches broad, like planks, set upon end in the 
ground, the other [end] nailed to the raising, which 
they plaster warm, and they build a bam after the 
same manner." ^ Bankers and Sluyter mention 
similar houses in East New Jersey, **rude in struct- 
ure but comfortable, constructed of trees split and 
stood on end and shingled.** ' The great majority 
of houses everywhere were built of wood, often 
larger than those just mentioned, having two or 
three rooms to a floor, and in New Engl§md a sec- 
ond floor, an attic, and generally a lean-to. ^ A few of 
the southern plantations boasted elaborate wooden 
houses. j 

In the cities some brick buildings existed. In 
1660 Boston was a great town, with two churches, 
a State-house, market-place, and good shops;* in 
1679 it was described as ** a large city on a fine bay, 
with three churches, the houses covered with thin 
cedar shingles nailed against frames and then filled 

* '* Quaker's Account of New Jersey/* Rawlinson MSS., in 
Bod. Lib., D 810, f. 55. 

» Bankers and Sluyter, Journal, 173, 175. 

* Maverick, Description of New England (N. E. Historical 
and Genealogical Register, XXXIX., 43). 


with bricks and other stuff." * Maverick describes 
Plymouth and New Haven as poor towns, the latter 
not as glorious as it once was ; Hartford as a gallant 
town with many rich men in it.'j (Albany had 
about two hundred houses,! mostly of stone and 
brick, and a fort fifteen feet high, made of logs. 
New York had eight himdred houses built of the 
same materials, and a fort, with four bastions and 
thirty-nine guns, well maintained and garrisoned 
with a large body of soldiers. It faced the harbor, 
in which Governor Dongan thought a thousand 
ships might ride safe from wind and weather. Its 
chaplain, Wolley, was not very favorably impressed 
with the appearance of the city, but Denton thought 
it exceedingly pleasing with its houses covered with 
red tiles.* 

Across the river were the towns of East New 
Jersey, small and unpretentious, though Elizabeth 
had a court-house, a prison, and six hundred in- 
habitants, and was the largest and most important 
in the region. Perth Aniboy was well situated at 
the head of a spacious harbor, into which, says 
G. L., a ship of three hundred tons btirden could 
''safely come and ride close to the shore within a 
plank's length just before the houses of the town. 
. . . The land there,** continues the same writer, 

* Dankers and Sluyter, Journal, 394, 395. 

* Maverick, Description, 45, 47. 

■ Wolley, Two Years' Journal, 55; Denton, Brief Description 
of New York, 2 ; Dongan's Answers to Queries (1687) , Cal. of State 
Pap., Col., 1685-1688, }3a7. 

1689] SOCIAL LIFE 299 

*'is not low, swampy, marsh groimd, but pretty 
high grotmd, rising thirty, in some places forty, foot 
high, and yet hath many conveniences for landing 
goods."* The whole region from the Hudson to 
the Delaware, according to the testimony of many 
witnesses, was healthful and fertile, and many of 
the correspondents of this period think a man 
better off in New Jersey and Pennsylvania than in 

From East New Jersey to West New Jersey and 
Philadelphia one stepped into a different social at- 
mosphere. There were large places like Burlington, 
Salem, and Gloucester, centres of commerce and 
trade, and readily accessible '*in boats from a 
small canoe to vessels of thirty, forty, fifty, and in 
some places of a hundred tons." * Gabriel Thomas 
describes Burlington as a famous town, with many 
stately brick houses, a great market - house, with 
markets and fairs to which the people from the 
country round were wont to gather; while outside 
the town were country-houses for the gentry, 
gardens and orchards, bridges and ferries over the 
rivers.* Wherry boats plied across the Delaware 
to Philadelphia, already a large and commodious 
town, with wharves and timber-yards, ship-yards 

* " Quaker's Account of New Jersey," Rawlinson MSS., in 
Bod. Lib., D 810, f. 55. 

' Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietors, App., passim. 
■ " Quaker's Accotint of New Jersey," Rawlinson MSS.^ in 
Bod. Lib., D 810, f. 55. 

* Thomas, Description of West New Jersey, 15, 19. 



and rope-walks. Near by were four market towns 
— Chester, Germantown, New Castle, and Lewistoti \ 
— among which watermen plied their wherries. 
Farther back in the coimtry were villages — ^Haver- 
ford, Merioneth, and Radnor — ^whose names betray 
their Welsh origin. 

Passing from the Delaware to the Chesapeake, a 
traveller entered still another environment, and, 
as he pushed down the eastern shore, journeyed 
generally on foot or by boats from plantation to 
plantation, crossing many creeks and rivers, and 
lengthening his course by circuitous routes around 
marshy places and impassable morasses. On the 
high ground lived the planters, rich and poor, with 
their servants and slaves. Nowhere in Maryland 
were there compact settlements such as we find 
in New England, nor yet were the conditions ex- 
actly the same as those in Virginia. The Puritan 
settlement, Annapolis, was a town, and the names 
of Oxford Town, Calvert Town, Charles Town, and 
Battle Town bear witness to the efforts of the 
proprietary to erect centres of population in his 
province. His best endeavors were never very suc- 
cessful; even St. Mary's City, the seat of govern- 
ment, was without social or economic unity, for its 
inhabitants lived for thirty miles along the bay. 
Virginia, on the other hand, had not a semblance of 
a town. As contemporary writers put it, *' there 
were neither towns, markets, nor money,'* * only 

* Hart well, Blair, and Chilton, Present State of Virginia. 

1689] SOCIAL LIFE 301 

scattered plantations along the rivers, each with its 
wharf and landing-place, an independent, self- * 
sufficing community, fin North Carolina, if we 
may judge from the accoimt given by George Fox 
in his journal, the inhabitants lived as widely 
separated from one another as in Virginia, com-^ 
municating with difficulty /knd at rare inter\'als. 
South Carolina had one cityl Charles Town, situated 
on low grotmd at the jtmction of the Ashley and 
Cooper rivers. Fotmded as a village of a few 
houses in 1680, it had risen by 1682 to be a town of 
one himdred structures, all built of wood, though 
there appears to have been good material for 
brick in the neighborhood. The city faced an ex- 
cellent harbor, was capable of strong defence, and 
was readily approached by small vessels and (with 
the aid of a pilot) by ships of many tons burden. 
In the immediate neighborhood were a few planta- 
tion settlements, but up to 1689 no attempts were 
made to push back the frontier and explore the 

Among the colonies, as a whole, communication 
was infrequent. Coasting vessels ran from New 
England to New York, the Delaware, Virginia, and 
Carolina, and larger ships occasionally put in from 
England or the West Indies. Transportation was 
almost entirely by water ; horses were used at times 
for cross-cotmtry travel, but they were expensive, 
and the colonists bred them rather for export than 
for use. Land travel was generally on foot, and 


consequently the mass of the people journeyed very 

Habits and modes of life throughout all the 
colonies were of the very simplest sorti Very few 
houses were elaborately furnished, and, except in 
the commercial centres, few fabrics or furniture of 
English or foreign manuf acttu-e were seen. It is ex- 
traordinarily rare to find a settler, like Giles Brent 
of Maryland, boasting of three estates, well stocked, 
large quantities of gold and silver plate, many 
precious stones, including '*one great diamond" 
worth ;^2oo, tapestry wrought with gold and silk, 
linen, pewter, and brass suflScient to furnish two 
large houses, and **a fair library of books" worth 
;^i4o.^ One can but wonder if Brent had friends 
among the buccaneers. 

Daily intercourse was devoid of ceremonial, and, 
in New England especially, social standards, though 
often rigid and even aristocratic, were free from 
the strict class distinctions of English society. In 
New York, among the officials of the city and 
the soldiers of the garrison, and in the southern 
colonies among councillors, governors, and propri- 
etaries, English practices and ceremonies prevailed. 

An example of stateliness was the ftmeral of 
William Lovelace. The room in which the de- 
ceased lay was heavily draped with mourning and 
adorned with the escutcheons of the family. At 

' Copley c. Ingle, Admiralty Court ^ Libels, Public Record 
Office, 107, No. 265. 

i689] SOCIAL LIFE 303 


the head of the body was a pall of death's-heads, 
and above and about the hearse was a canopy 
richly embroidered, from the centre of which hung 
a garland and an hour-glass. At the foot was a 
gilded coat of arms, four feet square, and near by 
were candles and fumes which were kept con- 
tinually burning. At one side was placed a cup- 
board containing plate to the value of £200. The 
ftmeral procession was led by the captain of the 
company to which the deceased had belonged, 
followed by the "preaching minister," two others of 
the clergy, and a squire bearing the shield. Before 
the body, which was borne by six ** gentlemen 
bachelors," walked two maidens in white silk, 
wearing gloves and ** Cyprus scarves," and behind 
were six others similarly attired, bearing the pall. 
After the maidens came the uncle of the deceased. 
Governor Francis Lovelace, and his councillors, and 
four halberts wearing coats richly embroidered 
with crests. Then, preceded by the mace, came the 
mayor of the city, the aldermen, and a long line of 
ship - captains, burghers, and others, Dutch and 
English, walking two and two. The procession 
wended its way to the fort, where amid salvos of 
musketry the body was lowered into the grave. 
Until ten o'clock at night wines, sweetmeats, and 
biscuits were served to the mourners.* 

> *' Funeral Solemnities at the Interment of Mr. William Love- 
lace at New York, 1671" {Ashmolean MSS,, in Bod. Lib., 
846, f. 54). 


Such elaborate and expensive ceremonies were 
elsewhere unknown to the colonists; usually the 
commemorations of births, ma^pages, and deaths ^ 
were exceedingly tmpretentious. Money was scarce, ■ 
and while a few governors, like Berkeley in Virginia, 
kept a coach and pair, and could have diamond- 
shaped panes in the windows of their house^ even the 
royal appointees at this time made but little attempt 
at ostentatious display^ Exhibitions of wealth and 
of family arms and crests were hardly in keeping 
with the temper of the colonists ; and though there 
were families of rank in New England as well as 
in Virginia, there was little opporttmity, and less 
desire, to exercise the prerogatives of rank. \ 
\ Outside New England, religious and intellectual 
life was as yet undeveloped. The Church of Eng- 
land was to all intents and purposes the estab- 
lished church of South Carolina, as it was of Virginia^'' 
and there are few traces of other denominations, 
though Nonconformists had aided in settling the 
colony. Virginia in 167 1 had forty-eight parishes, 
and presumably as many ministers, though that 
does not necessarily follow. ^ Berkeley spoke of the 
ministers as well paid, but wished that they would 
pray oftener and preach less, and said that no 
ministers of ability had come to Virginia since " the 
persecution in Cromwell's tyranny drew divers 
worthy men hither." * 

* Berkeley's Answers to Queries (MSB. in Public Record Office, 
Colonial Papers, XXVI. , No. 77, i.). 

1689] SOCIAL LIFE 305 

(Maryland has been considered the strongest 
Anglican colony} but the strength of the church in 
Maryland has been exaggerated. \ Three-quarters of 
the colonists were Dissenters, and of the remainder 
a considerable number were Roman Catholics) In 
1676, John Yeo reported only three ministers of the 
Church of England in Maryland, though he spoke 
of others who pretended to be such **that never 
had a legal ordination." In 1677, ^ven Baltimore 
could mention only^ f our ministers with planta- 
tions of their own.* Contemporary evidence shows 
clearly that in many ways the condition of the 
church in Maryland was deplorable. Yeo, writ- 
ing from Pawtuxent to the archbishop of Canter- 
bury in 1676, bewails the state of the province, 
calling it a Sodom of uncleanness and a pest-house 
of iniquity. Bankers and Sluyter speak of the re- 
ligious life there as stagnant, the people as god- 
less and profane, listening neither to God nor to 
His commandments, and having neither church nor 
cloister.' This statement may be deemed a prej- 
udiced one, as the narrators were Labadists, seeking 
a home for their sect in America ; nevertheless it is 
borne out by the petition of Mary and Michael Tany 
of Calvert Town, who about 1685 prayed king, 
archbishop, and all the bishops of England to send 
over a minister to a suffering community, where the 
people were too poor, on account of the navigation 

* CaL of State Pap., Col. yi6ys-i6y6,iioos, 1677-1680, § 348. 
' Dankers and Sluyter, Journal, 218. 

VOL. v.— ao 



acts, to maintain church or clergy. They recalled 
the fact that as a result of a former petition Charles 
II. had sent over ** a minister and a parcel of Bibles 
and other church-books of considerable value," but 
that now they were without church or settled min- 
istry of any kind.* Cook, in his Sot-Weed Factor, 
agrees with these views.' 

I The Labadists were hardly more complimentary 
to New York, where an Anglican clmrch had been 
established at the conquest in 1664I Though the 
duke oi[ York appointed a chaplain to the garrison 
at New York as early as 1674, no clergyman ap- 
peared until WoUey came over in 1680, as chap- 
lain of the fort. Miller in his description is very 
scornful of the religious life of New York,^ deem- 
ing all Dissenters only ** pretended ministers') and 
charging them with leading ungodly lives.' \ In New 
Jersey the first Anglican church was at Elizabeth, 
where the services were conducted by a lay reader ; 
and in Philadelphia, the first Episcopal church was 
not built until 1695. 

Though by express command of the king Epis- 
copacy was tolerated in Massachusetts after 1660, 
the authorities there were wholly averse to the dis- 
cipline of the Church of England, and resisted every 
attempt to organize a congregation. Mason, of New 

* Petitions of Mary and Michael Tany, Tanner MSS.^ in Bod. 
Lib., 31, f. 137-139- 

* Md. Hist. Soc, Fund Publications No. 36, p. 5. 

* Miller, Description of New York^ chap. iii. 

1689] SOCIAL LIFE 307 

Hampshire fame, brought over Books of Common 
Prayer sent by the bishop of London before 1682,* 
but an Episcopal church was not established in 
Boston tmtil 1686. The colonists were fearful lest 
the Stuarts should force Episcopacy upon New 
England,' but the fear was unfounded, and Epis- 
copacy made no progress in the^ Puritan colonies 
during the seventeenth centur^. Even/ Maine, 
which had begim as an Anglican settlement, was 
Congregationalized before 1692. 

At first all the Anglican churches in the colonies 
were under the charge of the archbishop of Canter- 
bury ; and a very important part of Clarendon's pol- 
icy after 1660 was his plan of making a bishopric of 
Virginia, and consolidating all the colonial churches 
tmder the authority, inspection, and jurisdiction 
of Archbishop Sheldon andJbiis supcessors. About 
1666 a patent was drawn up constituting Virginia 
a bishopric and a diocese, and declaring all the 
churches in the Bahamas, Bermudas, Jamaica, and 
the other island and continental colonies — except 
New England — to be parts* and members of the 
diocese of Virginia.^ Though this patent does not 
appear to have been acted on, the appointment of 
Alexander Murray, former companion of King 
Charles in his wanderings, and at this time in- 

* Letter from Boston (unsigned), December 11, 168 a, Tan^ 
ner MSS.^ in Bod. Lib., 35, f. no. 

' Patent for the erection of Virginia into a bishopric, ibid., 
447, ff. 69-76. 


cumbent of Ware parish in Virginia, to be bishop 
of that colony was seriously considered in 1673/ 

Jurisdiction over the colonial churches was soon 
after vested in the bishop of London, Who, as a 
member of the Lords of Trade and Plantations, 
took frequent occasion to impress upon the com- 
mittee the needs of the church in America. But 
for many years to .come the Episcopal jurisdiction 
amounted to little; and did not include the licens- 
ing of marriages, probation of wills, or induction of 
ministers. In Virginia, a commissary, representing 
the bishop, was sent over in 1689, but inasmuch as 
his authority was too limited t(3 be of importance, 
he became little more than a special correspondent 
who sent letters to the bishop regarding the religious 
condition of the colony. 

In the north, Congregationalism, not Episcopacy, 
was established. Every town in New England had 
its Congregational church supported by taxation,) 
and the larger communities and townships had two 
or more ecclesiastical societies. Connecticut had 
chiefly ** large" Congregationalists, who accepted 
the Half-way Covenant, and a few ** strict" Con- 
gregationalists, Presbyterians, and Quakers.' Rhode 
Island had no state church, recognizing to the ut- 
most the right of ''soul liberty"and inviting all denom- 
inations to share its territory. Quakers and Baptists, 
however, predominated over other denominations. 

* Harleian MSS., in British Museum, 3790, ff. 1-4. 

' Conn. Col. Records ^ III., 297; Allen, History of Enfield. 

1689I SOCIAL LIFE 309 

From New York to Pennsylvania a mixture of 
religious faiths appears* In the former, besides 
the Anglicans, were the Dutch Lutherans and 
Calvinists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and 
Jews/ In Albany all the colonists were Dutch 
Calvinists, in Long Island the majority were Con- 
gregationalists. There were many French Hugue- 
nots on Staten Island, but they had no church.' 
In New Jersey there were mainly Congregational- 
ists, Lutherans, and Quakers. In West New Jersey 
there were several Quaker /meetings and some 
Presbyterians and Baptists./ In Philadelphia the 
Quakers, who were divided into two bodies by the 
apostasy of George Keith, controlled the govern- 
ment : but the city contained also congregations of 
Swedish Lutherans, English Baptists, and Presby- 

In the southern colonies were many Nonconform- 
ists — Presbyterians, Baptists, Roman Catholics, 
Labadists (about a hundred, in Maryland), and 
Quakers. In North Carolina the Anglicans had done 
nothing to establish Episcopacy, and the colony was 
in control of the Quakers* Thus, in the main, the 
Church of England was the established church of 
the south, and Congregationalism was the estab- 
lished religious system of the north; while in the 
middle colonies there existed a mixture of religious 

* Miller, Description of New York, 37; iV. Y. Docs. Rel. to 
Col. Hist., III., 262. 

' Dankers and Sluyter, Journal, 142; Lod wick's Description. 


bodies, no one of which could claim superiority to 
"\ the others in numbers or influence. ■ 

The educational and intellectual life of the colo- 
nies was low. Public schools were common in New 
England, where the people, coming from the towns 
of old England, had high ideals of the value of 
education. Massachusetts and Connecticut provided 
schools for nearly every township. Plymouth and 
Rhode Island were more backward, and education 
made little progress in those colonies until the next 

In New York there seem to have been no schools 
at all-^at least, no contemporary speaks of them, and 
Andres in his reply to the queries of the Lords of 
Trade says nothing of education. New Jersey had 
no schools until 1693,* and Budd in his account of 
New Jersey and Pennsylvania urges the establish- 
ment of schools, and proposes that white men and 
Indians alike shall be educated, not only in liberal 
arts, but in manual training also.^ Ten years later 
Gabriel Thomas reported several good schools of 
learning in Pennsylvania, and we know that William 
Bradford introduced a printing-press there in 1685. 

Apparently Maryland had no schools of any kindf? 
Berkeley's famous reply to the queries of 167 1 in- 
dicates the condition of Virginia at that date. 
**But I thank God," he says, "there are no free 
schools nor printing, and I hope we shall not have 

> Whitehead, East Jersey, 159-174. 

' Budd, Account of New Jersey and Pcnnyslvania, 43, 44. 

1689] SOCIAL LIFE 311 

these hundred years, for learning has brought dis- 
obedience and heresy and sects into the world and 
printing has divulged [them] and libels against the 
best government. God keep us from both." * A 
few years later provision was made for schools 
and school - masters and for a system of licens- 
ing whereby the standard of teaching might be 
raised. The greater part of the colony, however, 
retained the old customs, in accordance with which 
every man instructed his children according to his 

The only institution for higher education in 
1689 was Harvard College, founded in 1636 and 
incorporated in 1650. It was quartered in **a fair 
and comely edifice, having in it a spacious hall, and 
a large library with some books in it."' ** Every 
scholar that on proofe is found able to read the 
Originals of the Old and New Testament into the 
Latin tongue, and to resolve them Logically, withall 
being of godly life and conversation; and at any 
publick Act hath the Approbation of the Overseers 
and Master of the Colledge, is fit to be dignified 
with his first degree." • Higher qualifications of 
a similar character admitted the student to the 
second degree. Mather, writing in 1691, said that 
the degree of master of arts was won after "seven 

* Berkeley's Answers to Queries, MSB. in Public Record Office, 
Colonial Papers ^ XXVL, No. 77, i. (query 23). But c£. Tyler, 
England in America ^ chap. vi. 

* Dankers and Sluyter, Journal, 385. 

* New England* s First Fruits (1643), i^* 


years standing, as 'tis in Oxford and Cambridge. . . . 
. We never,** he adds, ** (more's pity) had any Drs." * 
Those who watched the college at its birth, who 
draughted the ** Rules and Precepts that are ob- 
served in the CoUedge," and who drew up the *' Times 
and Order of their Studies," with " Chaldee at the 9th 
houre" and **Syriack at the loth houre," might 
have been scandalized had they read the account 
of Bankers and Sluyter, written after visiting the 
college in 1679. These men declared that they saw 
only ten students sitting around, smoking tobacco 
in a room which smelt like a tavern; that they 
tested these students in speaking Latin, with sad 
results; and that the Ubrary contained nothing 
in particular. The authorities of Harvard might 
have been equally scandalized had they knowTi 
of the later career of Sir George Downing, who as 
Georgius Downingus, in 1642, fulfilled in part the 
requirements of the first degree by defending 
successfully such ethical theses as these: Justitia 
mater omnium virtutum, Mentiri non potest qui 
verum dicit; Juveni modestia summum ornamentum. 
Except for theological writings in New England, 
and a few journals and descriptions of country and 
travel, the colonies developed little literature before 
1689. There were very few physicians and scarcely 
any lawyers, a strong prejudice against the latter 
existing everywhere. Letchford, in Massachustts, 


* Increase Mather to Anthony d Wood (Tanner MSS.^ in 
Bod. Lib., 26, f. 48). 

1689] SOCIAL LIFE 313 

had not been allowed to practise his profession and 
took his revenge by writing in his Plaine Dealing a 
scathing criticism of the colony's method of doing 
justice. Lawyers seem to have been allowed in 
East New Jersey ; * but the Quakers in Pennsylvania 
were bitterly opposed to law-suits in every form. 
Gabriel Thomas rejoiced that Pennsylvania did not 
need either the tongue of the lawyer nor the pen of 
the physician, both, he says, being ** equally de- 
structive of men's estates and lives." ' Alsop, in 
Maryland, said that if the lawyer there had "noth- 
ing else to maintain him but his bawling, he might 
button up his chops and bum his buckram bag"; 
and Cook shows his opinion of lawyers when he 
speaks of them as breaking the peace and wrangling 
for plaintiff and defendant. The hostility for this 
class of professional men became in Virginia so 
marked as to lead to legislation against the practice 
of law.* A few years later Colonel Byrd said that 
while there were a few men in the colony who called 
themselves doctors they were "generally discarded." 
As for North Carolina, a resident of Albemarle Coun- 
ty wrote to his father in England that " those who 
profess themselves doctors and attorneys are scan- 
dalous to their profession, impudence and notorious 
impertinence making up their character." 

> Whitehead, East Jersey, 166. 

' Thomas, Account of the Province of Pensilvania, 32. 

"Alsop, Character of the Province of Maryland, 47; Cook, 
Sot'Weed Factor, 12, 19; Hening, Statutes, I., 495, II., yi\ Shane 
MSS., in British Museum, 748, f. 12, 4040, f. 151. 





THOUGH education and religion were neglected, 
and the colonists were content with home-made 
remedies for disease and home-made methods of 
settling disputes, their material needs had to be 
provided for. During the first seventy years, life 
in the colonies was largely agricultural, and the , 
settlers busied themselves with cutting down the ^ 
forests and extending the cultivable area. It was 
not an easy matter for them to discover at once 
the natural staples of the country, though as early as 
1 61 6 Virginia appreciated the merits of the tobacco 
industry and by 1640 Maryland made tobacco her 
leading product. South Carolina, though experi- 
menting with rice and indigo at an early date in 
her history, did not realize till after 1 700 that either 
was especially adapted to her climate and soil.* 
In fact, the colonists, often urged on by those 
pecuniarily interested at home, were continually 

* Rivers, South Carolina, 172, «.; McCrady, Hist, of South 
Carolina f L, 349. 



trying experiments to make the new country more 
profitable and to supply England with materials 
that she herself could not produce. 

To the men of the seventeenth century the New 
World was a kind of Eldorado, capable of supply- 
ing not only herbs, drugs, and fruits unknown to 
Europeans, but also an infinite variety of valuable 
products for which Englishmen were dependent on 
other and rival countries. For this reason many of 
the descriptions that have come down to us of the 
proprietary colonies must be taken at something 
less than their face value. 

During the first twenty years of its career as a 
settled colony South Carolina developed very slowly, 
owing to the small number of the colonists and to^^ 
their inexperience as agriculturists and farmers. 
As elsewhere, the finer grains, such as English 
wheat and barley, though successfully cultivated in 
Carolina, were generally disregarded owing to the 
greater profitableness of Indian -com, which was 
not only easy to raise but was also more useful as 
food. In addition, each family had its stock of 
pigs and cows, with the increase of which it was 
able to build up a small export trade. Planters who 
lived on larger estates outside the town, notably 
on the southern side of the Ashley River, devoted 
themselves to raising cattle and com; while others, 
nearer the pine belts, prepared tar and pitch 
and made clapboards. After supplying their own 
needs the settlers were able to furnish vessels, 


privateers and others, which came into the harbor 
for victualling ; and often on this accoimt th^ colo- 
nists were charged with harboring pirates, of whom 
there were many along the coast. They also sent 
cattle, com, pork, pitch, tar, and clapkaSHls to 
Barbadoes more cheaply than the other plantations, 
because of their nearness to the West Indies. In re- 
tufn they received sugar, rum, molasses, and ginger, 
the greater part of which was sent to England and 
exchanged for manufactured goods. We are told 
that in 1680 ** sixteen sail of vessels, some upwards 
of two hundred tons, came from divers parts of the 
king's kingdom to trade at Charles Town.'' 

The colony had, however, little trade with Eng- 
land in staples of its own, for fur and cedar wood 
were the only articles available for that purpose, 
and there is reason to believe that none of the lat- 
ter commodity had actually been exported at this 
time. In truth. South Carolina was still more 
closely connected with the island plantations than 
with those of the main-land. Its isolation, south- 
erly location, and the character of its economic 
life during the seventeenth century, place it apart 
from the northern colonies, in a group with the 
English plantations in the West Indies.* 

After 161 6 the shipping of tobacco to England 
from Virginia became regular, and though Indian- 

* Wilson, Account of Carolina; Ashe, Carolina , in Carroll, 
Historical Collections, II., 19-35; Rawlinson MSS., in Bod. Lib., 

D 810, ff. 53-55- 



com and some English wheat were grown, they 
were kept in the colony for home consumption. 
A few other things were exported ; * but as tobacco 
was the superior commodity, and the most lucrative, 
various attempts to cultivate flax, rice, and cotton 
failed utteriy. Tobacco became the chief source 
of Virginia's wealth, the staple product that con- 
tributed most largely to her material prosper- 
ity, inasmuch as in colonial days it was the only 
product that could be exchanged with the mother- 
country for manufactured goods at a reasonable 

Virginia could not be roused to take an interest 
in domestic manufactures except so far as they 
aided agriculture. Many attempts were made to 
bring over mechanics and artisans, but their em- 
ployment was always uncertain, and in some 
instances they succtmibed to the seductive influ- 
ence of tobacco and became agriculturists.^ Ship- 
building was confined to small craft used for local 
transportation ; and other industries, such as glass- 
making, were undertaken with but little success. 
Attempts at mining and smelting iron and the 
plan of exporting linen made of flax spun in the 
colony came to nothing. Cotton was spun and 
woven on the plantations, and clothing from both 
cotton and wool was made, but only for domestic 

* Brown, Genesis of tite United States, I., 783; CcU. of State 
Pap., Col., 1 574-1660, 17; Tyler, England in America, chap. v. 
' Bruce, Econ, Hist, of Virginia, XL, 413. 

fc»-"»» :»■'-■ ■ -'■ ;-.- ^' . _i- "!""_ 


purposes. Other trades and crafts were pursued 
only for the purpose of promoting the interests 
of a dominant agricultural class. 

Much the same conditions prevailed in Mary- 
land, where tobacco was the currency and the 
leading staple. It was easy to raise, and its 
cultivation brought abimdant returns. We may''^ 
not doubt that tobacco planting encouraged in- 
dolence and thrif tlessness ; and we have seen that 
overproduction in both Virginia and Maryland 
created a panic among the poorer colonists and 
brought distress and poverty upon them. Mary- 
land having no shipping of her own was obliged 
to export her produce in vessels furnished by 
Vii^nia and New England and in Dutch freight- 
boats and merchantmen; though the latter, after 
1665, were forbidden to carry colonial commodities. 
The New - Englanders brought wines and sugars 
and took off tobacco and furs, though, as Alsop 
blandly remarks, they would rather have got fat 
pork for their goods than tobacco and furs.* Ves- 
sels from England also came, bringing silks, linen 
and woollen manufactures, and household goods, 
which were exchanged for tobacco. 

Towards the end of the century there appears to 
have been an increase in the sowing of com and / 
wheat, and the colony did what it could to encour-y 
age the building of grist-mills. Very few planters, 
however, made use of these mills, for, inasmuch as 

' Alsop, CJtaracter of the Province of Maryland, 68, 69. 



wheat flour was used only by the rich, and was 
therefore not a staple, most of the planters preferred 
to do their own grinding on their own estates by 
hand-mills, which were needed for grinding the com 
and beating the hominy used by the negroes/ Al- 
most nothing was manufactured save what was 
needed for domestic purposes, so that the colonists, 
despite the efforts of the government to promote 
the manufacture of linen and woollen cloth,' did 
not pass out of the agricultural stage during the 
seventeenth century. 

In that wide stretch of country between the 
Chesapeake and the Hudson, the Swedes, Finns, 
and Dutch, in what has been wittily called the pre- 
Pennian era, led a flourishing agricultural and trad- 
ing life. The Swedes built churches and houses of 
residence, cultivated their gardens, orchards, and 
farms, and raised goats, cattle, and swine. They 
did a good business in tobacco and furs, and con- 
tinued their agricultural and trading life even after 
the subjection of the region by the Dutch.* D'Hino- 
jossa brought the colony to a high state of effi- 
ciency,* and before New Netherland fell into the 
hands of the English, had made provision for ex- 
tending the fur trade with the Indians and the to- 
bacco trade with Maryland. 

^ Tyson, in Md. Hist. Soc., Fund Publications, No. 4, zz; 
Bankers and Sluyter, Journal, 2z6, 2Z7. 

• Aid. Archives, II., 324. 

^ Pa. Magazine, VII., 271-281; Acrelius, Hist, of New 
Sweden, 36. * N. Y. Docs. Ret. to Col. Hist., II., 2zo. 


The impulse thus given to fanning and trade 
continued after the region came under the control of 
Penn. He found within his colony at least a thou- 
sand colonists on the right bank of the Delaware, 
who owned well-managed and well-equipped planta- 
tions. The lower coimties became a supply field 
for the commodities that Pennsylvania exported, 
and large quantities of produce and tobacco were 
sent up the Delaware in Uttle boats built at 
Fort Christina (Wilmington) and New Castle. The 
governments of West New Jersey and Pennsylvania 
established fairs, where the farmers exchanged their 
garden stuff for manufactured articles. Before 
the end of the century the lower counties had be- 
come what they continued to be throughout their 
colonial history — a farming region having its market 
at Philadelphia.* 

Penn, on his arrival, encouraged industrial activ- 
ity of every kind and endeavored to promote trade 
with the Indians in furs and skins. From the 
beginning of his undertaking he intended to make 
his colony a centre of commerce and industry as 
well as of agriculture. The words of the charter 
itself have a commercial ring,^ and disclose some 
of the innermost of Penn's thoughts. In his 
various proposals to adventurers, Penn lays stress 
upon the ** capacity of the place for further im- 

* Holm, in Pa. Hist. Soc, Memoirs, III., 90; Scharf, Hist, of 
Delaware, I., 155-170. 

' See charter, §§xi., xii., xiii. 


provements in order to trade and commerce." * 
He incorporated the unfortunately unsuccessful 
Free Society of Traders for the ** better improve- 
ment of trade," ^ on the ground that ** honest and 
industrious traffic has been the usage and praise of 
many nations" ; and that ** tmion of traffic prevents 
emulation," since ''every one is interested in every- 
one's prosperity and the profit must be greater and 

Ship - building began early in the north, and ^ 
commerce, both by land and sea, sprang up between 
New England, New York, Philadelphia, Maryland, 
Virginia, Carolina, and Jamaica, Barbadoes, and 
other West Indian islands. In the first account of 
his province (1683) Penn said, **More being pro- 
duced and imported than we can use here, we 
export it to other countries in Europe, which 
brings in money or the growth of those countries, 
which is the Sjame thing, and this is to the ad- 
vantage of English merchants and seamen."" The 
forest trees were suitable for ships, some of them 
being ** stately oaks fifty to sixty feet long and 
clear from knots, being straight and well grained"; 
and the harbor was **safe and commodious, with 
numerous docks where quite large ships could lie." 
In 1685 a *'fair key three htmdred feet square" was 

' Penn's first proposals, in Hazard, Annals, 505-513; "A Fur- 
ther Account of the Province," Pa. Magazine, IX., 64. 

• Hazard, Annals, 541-550; Pa. Magazine, V., 37-50. 

• Hazard, Register, I., 306; Annals, 507. 

VOL. v.— ai 


built, and also a rope-walk for the making of cord- 
age.* From these beginnings the commerce of 
Philadelphia grew rapidly and the city became the 
entrep6t for the trade of the surrounding country. 
A great variety of commodities was carried to 
Europe and the other colonies, to the West Indies 
and Central America, for the trade was practically 

Among these exported articles were no manu- 
factured goods whatever ; ^ commerce overshadowed- 
every other economic interest. With money ob- 
tained from the West Indies, with sugar obtained 
from the French sugar islands, and with such ex- 
changeable commodities as they and their neighbors 
produced, the Pennsylvanians secured all that they 
wished in the way of manufactured goods from 
England. Hemp and flax were spun and woven 
into cloth for coarse varieties of clothing, and flax 
and wool were used for druggets, linsey-woolsey, 
and the like; but the better sort of goods, for 
men as well as women, were imported directly or 
made from imported materials. Philadelphia was 
against homespun and in favor of goods of foreign 

West New Jersey stood in much the same relation 
to Philadelphia as did Delaware. Economically, it 
belonged to the group of which Philadelphia was the 

* Pa. Magazine, IX., 66; Thomas, Account of West Jersey cnid 
Pensilvania, 38, 39; Proud, Hist, of Pennsylvania, 204. 

• Macpherson, Annals of Commerce, III., 164. 


centre and market, and was, therefore, distinct from 
East New Jersey, which both in staple products and 
economic connections was attached to New York. 
At first Burlington promised to be an independent 
commercial centre. A letter written in 1680 spoke 
of the town as likely to become **a place of trade 
quickly." Business was done with Barbadoes, and 
there was every reason to believe that a good trade 
with the West Indies might be built up.* But as 
Philadelphia rose, Burlington declined. With its 
wharves and timber-yards, it was an important 
centre, and was inhabited by artisans who made 
cotton and woollen goods, and held fairs for the ex- 
change of produce and wares.' 

Gabriel Thomas sums up the situation in West 
New Jersey when he says that in Burlington County 
the staples for home consumption and for export 
were peltage and beaver skins, otter, mink, muskrat, 
raccoon, wildcat, martin, and deer; in Gloucester 
County, pitch, tar, rosin, grain, and fruit; in Salem 
Coimty, rice and cranberries, ** which in picle might 
be brought to Europe; and in Cape May County, 
oil and whalebones." By the beginning of the 
seventeenth century West New Jersey had given up 
its trade in furs and was confining its attention to 
agriculture. Outside of the cities of Burlington, 
Gloucester, and Salem compact settlement did not 
exist. The country was filled with wide-stretching 

» Smith, Hist, of N. J., 113, 114. 

» Thomas. Account of West New Jersey, 15. • Ibid,, 32, 33. 


plantations, on which com and other commodities 
were raised for the Philadelphia and home mar- 

In passing northward to the settlements on the'^ 
west side of the Hudson River, we enter a dif- 
ferent economic world. The settlers came mainly 
from Long Island and New England and brought 
with them many of the habits and practices common 
to the agricultural life of New England. About the 
Raritan and Passaic rivers they built up a miniature 
New England, in which settlement was by towns 
and outlying plantations. Lands in Elizabeth, 
Newark, Woodbridge, Piscataway, and other towns 
were held in small parcels, while the outlying dis- 
tricts, which in the course of time became separate 
towns and villages, were occupied by farmers, and 
were known as out-plantations or quarters. At 
first the staple products were garden stuffs; later, 
fish, nuts, and fruits were added. A farmer of this 
district, writing in 1676, says, **This is a rare 
place for any poor man, and I am satisfied that 
people may live better here than they do in old 
England." ' 

The proprietaries were not content that East 
New Jersey should remain simply an agricultural 
Arcadia. They wished to foster a spirit of trade 
and to stimulate the production of articles suitable 
for export. In 1676 Governor Carteret made an 
effort to clear a ship at Elizabeth, but was pre- 

' A Further Account of New Jersey (1676) ,2,3. 


vented by Andros, in New York.* Three years later 
Carteret made another attempt, declaring Perth 
Amboy a free port and stating that all vessels 
desiring to come and trade with East New Jersey 
might do so freely.^ Thereupon ensued a long 
and bitter struggle on the part of the province to 
obtain the right of independent trade, which the 
authorities in New York resolutely refused to grant, 
on the grotmd that a port of entry in East New 
Jersey would ruin the trade of New York. The 
duties imposed by Pennsylvania and New Jersey 
were irregular and temporary in character, while 
those imposed by New York were permanent and 
onerous, consisting of a two-per-cent. duty on all 
excepting certain specified goods, which paid ten 
per cent." The duke of York, desiring profit from 
his province, continued the Dutch duties, which had 
originated in the monopoly of the Dutch West 
India Company, and expected that New Jersey 
should contribute to his revenues. 

Soon after the arrival of Dongan, in 1682, William 
Dyer was appointed collector at Perth Amboy, 
and refused to permit any vessel to enter that 
port unless it had first gone to New York and paid 
the customs duties there. The New Jersey people, 
who hated Dyer because he interfered with their 
freedom, made his official life a burden by ob- 
structing his efforts to prevent illegal trade. Dyer 

' N. J. Archives, I., 231. • Ibid., 232. 

• Co/, of Sta^e Pap., Col., 1685-1688. §§ 330-331- 


complained that the juries brought in verdicts 
against him and that he could not uphold the laws. 
Finally, he was himself chained with the costs of a 
case, deprived of his horse in part payment, and 
shut up in prison in default of the remainder.* 

This episode seemed a high misdemeanor to the 
Lords of Trade, and helped to provoke the issue of 
a quo warranto against the proprietaries, and the 
annexation of East New Jersey to the dominion 
of New England. The proprietaries endeavored 
to defend their rights in the matter, while the 
New York governors asserted that the colony was 
a nest of illegal traders, and that New York was in 
danger of ruin if a free port were allowed to exist 
so near at hand. The Lords of Trade finally com- 
promised, and in 1687 consented that Perth Amboy 
should be a separate port of entry, provided the 
same customs were paid as in New York. The/ 
revolution of 1689 gave the question a temporary 
rest, and in 1694 New Jersey erected a custom- 
house at Perth Amboy and passed an act to en- 
courage trade. ^ 

Bellomont, then governor of New York, took up 
the controversy, and, after long negotiation and 
many heart-burnings, the port question was finally 
carried to Westminster Hall, a trial at bar was 
obtained, and the case was decided in favor of 

> Cat. of State Pap., Col., 1685-1688, § 261 
^ Ibid., §§ 1014, 1160; A^. y. Archives, I., 540, 543; White- 
head, East Jersey, 102. 


New Jersey (1700). It may be an open question 
how far East New Jersey would ever have developed 
a trade of its own, but it is certain that the struggle 
over the port checked its progress at a critical 
time and that the favorable decision came too late 
to be of service. Lord Combury could report in 
1 708 that East New Jersey had no export trade ; * 
and during the remainder of the colonial period it 
was in large part only a supply territory, receiving 
its European goods through New York, just as West 
New Jersey received its goods through Philadelphia. 

New York was slow in building up its trade, and 
during the seventeenth century was more backward 
than Philadelphia. Dtiring the early history of the 
colony the Dutch were concerned chiefly with the 
fur trade, and not until 1638 did they give much 
thought to the raising of grain. The monopoly 
of the company was abolished in that year and 
the cultivation of the soil was thrown open to all. 
Farms were sown with com, cattle and horses were 
imported, and during Stuyvesant's administration 
flour, oats, pease, beans, pipe-staves, and lumber be- 
gan to be exported. But Stuyvesant was hampered 
by the heavy export and import duties, and the 
enforcement of the navigation act of 1651 enr 
couraged illegal trade in tobacco with Maryland 
and Virginia. 

With the transfer of New Netherland to the Eng- 

» N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist, IV., 719., V., 59; N, J, 
Archives, III., 333. 


lish the internal development of the colony be- 
came rapid. Settlements were established farther 
inland, the fur trade increased, and the city grew. 
But its growth was not in proportion to its 
age, and very naturally, for New York, after the 
loss of East New Jersey, controlled but a small 
area of supply for her shipping; the free -trade of 
adjoining colonies attracted many of her settlers, 
and the towns of Long Island, the most densely 
settled portion of the province, produced but little 
for export. Within the colony the struggle for 
political rights, the jealousy of the coimtry districts y 
for the city, of the farmers and producers for the 
burghers and merchants,* the want of an efficient 
encouragement of trade, the prevalence of a large 
amount of smuggling, due to the heavy duties and 
the operation of the navigation acts — all these con- 
ditions affected the prosperity of the colony. 

Gradually, however, the city rose to prominence. 
It became a centre for the produce of the adjoining 
regions, its harbor attracted shipping, a small ship- 
building industry came into existence, and ketches 
and other coasting vessels were made. The mer- 
chants sent flour, biscuit, beef, pork, bacon, and 
train-oil to the English colonies in the West Indies, 
and similar commodities to Surinam, Curagoa, and 
St. Thomas. In return they received sub-tropical 
products of many varieties, liquors, and Spanish 
coin. The majority of these commodities, except 

' Dankers and Sluyter, Journal, 353-355. 


the coin, together with furs, pitch, tar, and rosin, 
were shipped to England in exchange for manu- 
factured goods. On all these articles duties were 
paid, but the accounts of the revenues from 1690 
to 1696 show striking fluctuations that may be due 
to decay of trade or to smuggling.^ Not until 
Bellomont's administration did trade become steady 
and prosperous. 

In New England, as in the other colonies, the 
earliest phase of life was agricultural. Although 
the winters were severe, the summers were favorable 
to agriculture, and in all the colonies first attention 
was devoted to the turning of new ground and the 
cultivation of a supply of food. There were no 
large plantations and no lai?ge yield of any single 
commodity; but on the acres assigned to each in- 
habitant a plentiful supply of com, pease, and other 
garden vegetables could be raised. *'The people 
make a good shift for victuals,*' reported Bradstreet 
to the Lords of Trade, '* owing to the free allotment 
of lands at their first coming hither." ^ The largest 
single staple was Indian-corn, but English wheat 
was successfully raised, and hay was prepared for 
the cattle. The meadows, which were divided into 
unfenced lots and thrown open in the autumn to 
the cattle of the proprietors, were a feature of all 
New England towns. Besides cattle and garden 

* N. Y. Docs. Rel. to Col. Hist., III., 389-417, IV., 173, 599, 
600, 756, 1150, V. 57. 

• Col. of State Pap., Col., 1677-1680, f 529. 


produce, pipe-staves, clapboards, and Itimber were 
exported to the West Indies, and fish and pel- 
tries were sent to New Amsterdam and England,* 
Nearly all the colonies established frontier trading- 
posts, and, until the fisheries became prominent, 
furs were a leading staple. 

Fishing, not only off the banks of Newfoundland, 
but off many portions of the New England coast, 
was recognized eariy as an industry destined to 
add to the wealth and prosperity of the colonies. 
Cod and mackerel were caught, dried, and salted in 
large quantities and sent to Portugal, Spain, and 
Italy. From New York and New England sloops 
went with provisions and rum to Newf oimdland and 
brought back fish, which in ttim were exchanged 
in Europe for manufactured goods. It was es- 
timated that in 1709 three hundred vessels of a 
hundred tons each, from New England, Nova 
Scotia, and Newfoundland, were engaged in the 
industry; and that of all the fishermen those from 
New England ports took the largest share of the 
fish from the banks. Mackerel, which were sent 
to the West Indies, could never compete with cod- 
fish, which were in great demand in European coxon- 
tries. Though the fishing industry was seriously 
affected by King Philip's War, it speedily recovered 
and remained a prominent feature of New England's 
economic life to the end of the colonial period.' 

* Weeden, Econ. and Social Hist, of New England, I., 180, 181. 

* Ibid., 133-136. 139, 371-373- 


/ Thus the mainstay of New England's commerce 
was the trade in furs and fish.^^rom the begin- 
ning the instincts of exchange led to export, while 
necessity and mechanical ingenuity prompted the 
building of ships; and there is no more interesting 
feature of New England history than the way in 
which nearly every town on sea-coast or navigable 
river became a builder of vessels, and the ease 
with which every colonist became a sailor. From 
1 63 1, when the Blessing of the Bay was launched at 
Mystic, ship-building became a part of the life of 
New England. Writers have ascribed this activity 
to the influence of the navigation acts, but there 
were many ships in New England before 1651. Six 
are mentioned in 1635, and also ship-carpenters, who 
were competent to build vessels of any burden.^ 

After 1640 Boston, Salem, Scituate, Dorchester, 
Gloucester, Plymouth, Newport, New London, and 
New Haven were all building vessels and sending 
them, loaded with produce and lumber, to adjacent 
colonies, Barbadoes, and England.' The vessels 
were generally small, designed for the coasting 
trade, though The Trial was of three hundred tons 
burden ; and the quality and workmanship so good 
that the vessels found ready market whenever the 
owners desired to sell, as they frequently did, not 
only the cargo, but the vessel also. 

' Col. of State Pap., Col., 1574-1660, §§ 158, 212. 
• Weeden, Econ. and Social Hist, of New England, I., 143, 
151. 162, 163. 


During the ensuing half -century ship-building in- 
creased, but commercial activity began to centre 
in a few places adapted for trade and export, such 
as Boston, Salem, Newport, and New London. 
Other towns, such as Wethersfield, kept up a small 
shipping industry, but one that became incon- 
spicuous as the years passed. The larger towns 
became the seats of exports and imports, receiving 
supplies from the cotmtry round about and fur- 
nishing the people with English goods. In 1676 
Randolph reported that seven hundred and thirty 
ships had been btiilt in Massachusetts, but no 
** ships of burthen," as far as he knew, in either 
Plymouth or Connecticut. Two years later Andros 
said practically the same thing; and in 1689 Dongan 
said that Connecticut had only a ketch or two and 
a few sloops, and had a small trade with Boston, 
New York, and the West Indies.* 

These statements were not strictly accurate, but 
in the main they were true, and show that trade, 
partly from natural causes and partly from the 
necessities of the customs service, was con^mng 
itself to a smaller ntimber of ports of entry. Plym- 
outh could say very definitely in 1680 that she 
imported nothing directly and had as vessels 
**but scallops and fishing ketches"; and in the 
same year Connecticut said that most of her com- 

^ Hutchinson Papers, II., 232; Cat. of State Pap., Col., 1675- 
1676, §1067; 1685-1688, § 329; AT. y. Docs, Rel. to Col. Hist,, 
III., 263. 


modities were transported to Boston- and there 
bartered for clothing, though a little direct trade 
was had with the West Indies, Madeira, and Fayal.* 
Rhode Island did a considerable export business, 
and in 1680 reported forjy-nine vessels of all kinds. 
Massachusetts Bay was the leading commercial 
colony, and at this time Boston was the chief com- 
mercial city. Massachusetts was also the birth- 
place of American manufactures, which in the 
beginning, as in all the other colonies, took the 
form of homespim work for domestic purposes. 
Grist-mills, saw -mills, and tanneries were to be 
foimd everjrwhere; and salt works, brick -yards, 
glass works, pottery works, and cobblers' shops all 
existed , as auxiliaries to farming. Much the same 
conditions prevailed in Connecticut to the middle 
of the next century ; but Massachusetts at a rather 
early date turned her hand to more elaborate 
manufacturing. Cotton from Barbadoes, wool from 
the backs of domestic sheep, as well as from 
Bilbao and Malaga, furnished the material. Iron 
works were started at Saugus and Weymouth 
in 1640, and a man named Jenks was granted a 
patent in 1646 for making scythes at Lynn. There 
is reason to believe that edged tools of other varieties 
also were made.' 

* Col. of State Pap., Col., 1677-1680, {{ 522, 577. 

^ Mass. Col. Records, II., 105, III., 298; Cal. of State Pap., 
Col., 1 661-166 8, § 75; Weeden, Econ. and Social Hist, of New 
England, I., 183, 184. 


Later these industries expanded until the greater 
part of the New England colonists were wearing 
articles of their own making, and were using in their 
daily work utensils hammered out at their own 
forges. Every New-Englander was a bom mechanic ] 
and craftsman, and if tmable to obtain supplies 
elsewhere, either because of distance or poverty, 
knew how to provide for himself. He was not 
manufacturing for export, he was only trying to 
live and to work. But the home government, 
urged on by the manufacturers in England, who 
desired a market for their products, viewed even 
the homespim industry with suspicion, fearful lest 
it might curtail the colonial demand for English 
goods. No restrictions were imposed during the 
period imder discussion, but during the last decade 
of the seventeenth century, induced by the com- 
plaints of agents in America and urged on by in- 
terested parties at home, the English government 
began to adopt measures designed to prevent the 
increase of manufacturing in New England and > 
New York. 

Thus we see that from the point of view of in- 
dustry and staple products the colonies fall into 
certain defined groups. South Carolina was an ag-^ 
ricultural colony, carrying on a meagre commerce 
with the West Indies and closely allied to the West 
Indian group. Virginia and Maryland, absorbed 
in the production of tobacco, were wholly agri- 
cultural. The middle colonies, areas of agricidt- 


ural activity, made up two groups with centres 
in Philadelphia and New York, to which they 
sent their surplus products for transmission to 
foreign coimtries, the West Indies, or neighboring 
colonies. Delaware, Pennsylvania (outside of Phila- 
delphia), and New Jersey had no independent eco- 
nomic life, being self-sufficing agricultural regions, 
and reaching the outside worid only through the 
adjacent commercial cities to which, economically, 
they were attached, ^^efore 1689 no one of the 
southern or middle colonies had developed an in- 
dependent manufacturing life or had carried do- 
mestic industry to such a point as to arouse the^/ 
suspicions of the home government. In the south, 
manufacturing was subordinate to agriculture, and 
in Philadelphia to commerce. In New York, partly 
because of a growing mining industry in the hills 
across the Hudson, manufacturing tended to be- 
come a matter of importance; but even there it 
remained for the most part of little consequence 
in the seventeenth century. 

In New England manufacturing in mills was 
carried on only in the tidewater regions, an area 
exceedingly small as compared with the agricult- 
ural district behind it, in which manufacturing was 
subordinate to agriculture, lumbering, and com- 
merce. The instinct to manufacture was an in- 
grained characteristic of the New-Englander, and it 
is not surprising to find that manufacturing per- 
meated the New England colonies as it did none of 




the others. But at best it did not pass out of 
the domestic stage : people made their own clothes, 
hammered out their own nails> and provided^ 
thousand and one other necessary conveniences for 
comfortable living. 

At no time in their colonial history did English 
merchants have any special reason to fear colonial 
competitions, and though the restrictive policy 
of England may have succeeded in holding the 
colonies in check, it is an open question how far 
the colonists would have manufactured for export 
had they been let alone. England furnished New 
England and all the colonies with her own manu- 
factures as well as with those of other countries; 
but she failed signally in making the colonies 
in all particulars a vent for her own commodities. 
All the colonies provided themselves to a certain 
extent with what they needed, and in New England 
two-thirds of the people dressed in cloths of their 
own making. 

The mercantilist theorv, like others of a similar 
character but of later date, took no account of the 
colonist as he actually was. Statesmen of the day 
created an ideal colonist, and from a vantage-point 
three thousand miles away endeavored to apply a 
system of colonial management which they believed 
to be best adapted to the interest of all. But 
the mercantilist as well as the Stuart had no com- 
prehension of the difficulties of the problem. 






FOR general reader and student alike the great biblio- 
graphical aid on colonial history is Justin Winsor, 
Narrative and Critical History of America (8 vols., 
1888-1889): the field of colonial affairs from 1650 to 
1689 is covered by parts of vols. III., IV., and V.; the 
bibliographical chapters and notes are abundant but not 
very discriminating. Channing and Hart, Guide to the 
Study of American History (1896), contains lists of secondary 
authorities on state and local history (§ 23), and a list of 
colonial records classified by colonies and including local 
records (S 29); {{ 98-108, 120-128, are topical lists in the 
field of this volimie. The Guide now needs bringing up 
to date. J. N. Lamed, Literature of American History, a 
Bibliographical Guide (1902), contains descriptive and crit- 
ical notes on the principal authorities on colonial history. 


The period from 1652 to 1689 has been liberally dealt 
with by writers on colonial history. George Bancroft, 
History of the United States (last revision, 6 vols., 1883- 
1885), has devoted three-quarters of a volume to the 
subject; but his version shows strong hostility to the 
policy of the English government and is marred by un- 
necessary digressions. Richard Hildreth, History of the 
United States (6 vols., 1849-1852), passes over many 
phases of the subject with little appreciation of the issues. 
VOL.V.— aa 2jy 




Bryant and Gay, Popular History of the Untied States (5 
vols., 1896), contains much information, but the treat- 
ment is strictly popular. John Fiske's various volumes 
are of the same character, but of a higher order of thought 
and scholarship ; though written with great charm of style, 
they vary considerably in value, and often neglect some 
of the most significant aspects of colonial life. While 
apparently philosophical in treatment, most of Fiske's 
writing runs along on the surface and does not penetrate 
deeply into the causes and conditions of colonial history. 
Justin Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America 
(8 vols., 1888-1889), contains in vol. IIL excellent chapters 
on the period; but they are xmduly condensed, and the 
narrative has been sacrificed to the critical apparatus. 
J. A. Doyle, English Colonies in America (3 vols., 1882- 
1887), as yet incomplete, is the most pretentious work on 
the period, and the most important; it shows insight and 
scholarship, but is badly arranged, and is often based on 
inadequate information. George Chalmers, Political An- 
nals of the American Colonies (issued in quarto, 1780), 
consists of one volume and closes with 1688. The same 
author's Introdtiction to the Revolt of the American Colonies 
(reprinted in two volumes in 1845 with a valuable preface) 
carries the subject from 1606 to 1760. Chalmers's writings 
are of very great importance, and bring out as no other 
work has done the imity of colonial history. 


The only collection of documentary materials that covers 
the entire period and subject of this volume is the Calendars 
of State Papers, Colonial Series , America and West Indies, 
1 574-1696 (9 vols., 1 860-1 903). The publication of this 
indispensable work marks an era in the writing of American 
colonial history. The calendaring has been admirably done, 
but no abridgment can take the place of the complete 
documents, to which the student should go if possible. 
Fortimately many of the documents have been printed in 

1689] AUTHORITIES 339 

full in America; and manuscript copies of the volumes 
known as Proprieties and Plantations General are in the 
library of the Pennsylvania Historical Society. 

Among the collections of documents and extracts which 
facilitate the work of students and readers are: Peter 
Force, Tracts Relative to the Colonies (4 vols., 1836-1846); 
Albert Bushnell Hart, American History Told by Contem- 
poraries (4 vols., 1 898-1 902; most of vol. I. treats of 
English colonization). Lists of specific references to 
smaller collections will be fotmd in the New England 
History Teachers* Association, Report on Historical Sources 
in Schools (1901). The colonial charters appear in full 
in Ben Perley Poore, Federal afid State Constitutions (2 
vols., 1877), and reprints of some in William MacDonald, 
Select Charters (1899). The three great series. Documents 
Relative to the Colonial History of New York (14 vols, and 
index, 1 856-1883), Documents Relating to the Colonial 
History of New Jersey (22 vols., 1 880-1 900), and Colonial 
Records of North Carolina (10 vols., 1 886-1 890), contain 
much general material. 


England's Colonial Policy. — Little has yet been writ- 
ten upon England's colonial system and policy. The sub- 
ject may best be approached through William Cunningham, 
Growth of English Industry and Commerce (3d ed., vol. I., 
1902; vol. II., two parts, 1903); H. E. Egerton, Short 
History of British Colonial Policy (1897); and G. L. Beer, 
Commercial Policy of England toward the American Colonies 
(1893). On mercantilism, the best sketch is by Gustav 
SchmoUer, The Mercantile, System (W. J. Ashley's Economic 
Classics, 1896); the chief contemporary treatises are 
Thomas Mun, England's Treasure by Forraign Trade (1664) ; 
Sir Josiah Child, Discourse on Trade (1665); and Joshua 
Gee, Trade and Navigation of Great Britain Considered 

Navigation Acts. — No adequate study of the navigation 

r.T**VirT1Hi ri 


acts has been made. Edward Channing's article, "The 
Navigation Acts" (American Antiquarian Society, Pro- 
ceedings, 1889), does not go behind the letter of the statutes. 
A useful study is G. L. Beer, "Cromwell's Economic 
Policy" (Political Science Quarterly, XVL, 582-611, XVII., 
46-70). Some information regarding the circiunstai^ces 
xmder which the acts were passed may be obtained from 
Clarendon, History of the Rebellion (1888); Cobbett, Parlia- 
mentary History of England, 1066-1803 (London, 1808); 
Journals of the House of Commons (127 vols., 1 547-187 2); 
such contemporary writings as Edmund Ludlow's Memoirs 
(new ed., 1902), Samuel Pepys* Diary (1659-1669) ; and such 
biographies as W. D. Christie, Life of Shaftesbury (187 1), 
and T. H. Lister, Life of Clarendon (1838). Texts of the 
navigation acts in full appear in Statutes of the Realm, to 
1813 (12 vols., London, 1810-1838); V. Pickering, Statutes 
at Large (109 vols, and index, London. 1762). There are 
significant extracts in William MacDonald, Select Charters 
(1899); American History Leaflets; and elsewhere. 

Administrative Organs. — ^The organization and policy 
of the various councils and committees of trade can be 
studied only in their records. Of first importance is the 
official Journal (i vol., 1660-1663; 6 vols., 1675-1692). 
A copy of the entire jovimal after 1675 is in the library of the 
Pennsylvania Historical Society. The abbreviated minutes, 
reports, and recommendations of the committees, and other 
papers given in the Calendars, are often unsatisfactory, and 
the original, if possible, should be used. Many of these 
documents are printed in full in the various printed colonial 
archives. Almost nothing has been written on the ad- 
ministration of the navigation acts in the colonies, except 
two very brief articles by W. J. Ashley, in Studies ^ Eco- 
nomic and Political (1899). 


Social Life. — Little has been done in the way of a 
comprehensive study of the social conditions prevailing in 

1689] AUTHORITIES 341 

the colonies during the seventeenth century. W. B. 
Weeden, Economic and Social History of New England 
(2 vols., 1891), contains many facts regarding costumes, 
ftimishings, and habits of life. The writings of Mrs. Alice 
Morse Earle are excellent, and abound in illustrations from 
contemporary material. Culture history can best be ex- 
amined in the journals, descriptions, letters, and diaries of 
the time. Samuel Maverick, Description of New England, 
1660 (New England Historical and Genealogical Register , 
XXXIX., 33), is important. John Dunton, Letters from 
New England, 1686 (Prince Society, Publications, 1867), 
was written by **an impartial and trustworthy observer." 
Samuel Sewall, Diary, 167 4- 1729 (Massachusetts His- 
torical Society, Collections, 5th series, V. -VII.), is a 
standard authority for Massachusetts; and Thomas Minor, 
Diary, 1 653-1 684 (1899), throws a little light on Rhod^ 
Island and Connecticut history. 

Daniel Denton, Brief Description of New York (1670, 
Gowans* Bihliotheca Americana, 1845, reprinted 1903); 
John Miller, Description of the Promnce and City of New 
York (1695, Cjowans' Bihliotheca Americana, 1862, reprinted 
1903); and Charles Wolley, Two Years* Journal (1701, 
Gowans* Bihliotheca Americana, i860, reprinted 1902), 
give us an account of that province. Dankers and Sluy- 
ter, Journal, 1 679-1 680 (Long Island Historical Society, 
Memoirs, I.), contains some account of several of the 
colonies. Many unprinted documents are referred to in 
the foot-notes above. 

For the Jerseys there are many pamphlets and letters 
contained in W. A. Whitehead, East Jersey under the 
Proprietary Governments (with ** Miscellaneous Topics" and 
Appendix, 1875); in Samuel Smith, History of New Jer* 
sey (1765) ; and referred to in Whitehead's article in 
Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America, III., 

For West New Jersey and Pennsylvania we have Coxe's 
Account and A Quaker* s Account (referred to in the 
foot-notes above); Gabriel Thomas, Historical and Geo^ 



graphical Account of West New Jersey and Pensihania 
(1698, reprinted 1903); Thomas Budd» Good Order es- 
tablished in Pennsylvania and New Jersey (1685, Gowans' 
Bihliotheca Americana, 1865, reprinted 1902); the many 
letters of Penn (see references in foot-notes above); and 
James Claypoole's Letter-Book, extracts from which are 
printed in Pennsylvania Magazine, X., 188, 267, 401. 

For Maryland we have George Alsop, Character of the 
Province of Maryland (1666, Gowans* Bihliotheca Americana, 
1869; Maryland Historical Society, Fund Publication No. 
15, reprinted 1903); Lord Baltimore, Answers to Queries of 
Lords of Trade, 1678 {Maryland Archives, V., 264-269); 
Hammond, Leah and Rachel, or the Two Fruitful Sisters, 
Virginia and Maryland (1656); and E. Cook, Sot-Weed 
Factor and other poems, in B. C. Steiner, Early Maryland 
Poetry (edited for the Maryland Historical Society, Fund 
Publication No. 36). 

For Virginia we have Hartwell, Blair, and Chilton, 
Present State of Virginia (Massachusetts Historical Society, 
Collections, ist series, V.); Berkeley's and Moryson's an- 
swers to queries (see references in foot-notes above) ; many 
papers dealing with Bacon's rebellion and the tobacco- 
cutting riots; and John Clayton, Virginia (Force, Tracts, 
IIL, No. 12). 

For North Carolina there is little contemporary evidence 
except that contained in George Fox, Journal, and the 
papers in the Calendars dealing with the uprising there in 
1677. For South Carolina we have the letters from Thomas 
Newe to his father, noted in the text. Other excellent 
books are Samuel Wilson, Account of the Province of 
Carolina', and Thomas Ashe, Carolina, or a Description of 
the Present State of the Country (both in B. R. Carroll, 
Historical Collections, II., 19-35, 59-84). 

Religious Life. — The standard authority on the Church 
of England in the colonies is J. S. M. Anderson, History of 
the Church of England in the Colonies (2d ed., 3 vols., 1856) ; 
of greater completeness and scientific value is Arthur L. 
Cross, The Anglican Episcopate and the American Colonies 

1689] AUTHORITIES 343 

(Harvard Historical Studies, IX., 1902), dealing chiefly with 
the conditions of the eighteenth centtiry. Of importance 
are S. E. Baldwin, ** Jurisdiction of the Bishop of London" 
(American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings, October, 
1899); W. S. Perry, History of the American Episcopal 
Church (2 vols., 1885); F. L. Hawks, Contributions to the 
Ecclesiastical History of the United States (2 vols., 1836- 
1839); I. Backus, History of New England, with Particular 
Reference to the Denomination of Christians called Baptists 
(i 777-1 796, 2d ed. 187 1) ; and the volumes of the American 
Church History Series with the accompanying bibliog- 
raphies. W. Meade, Old Churches, Ministers, and Families 
of Virginia (2 vols., 1857), is full of interest for the church 
in that colony. Special monographs in the Johns Hopkins 
University Studies in History and Political Science are P. E. 
Lauer, Church and State in New England; George Petrie, 
Church and State in Maryland; S. B. Weeks, Church and 
State in North Carolina, 

Economic Conditions. — On the economic history of the 
colonies only two comprehensive works of value have been 
written: W. B. Weeden, Economic and Social History of 
New England (2 vols., 1896), and P. A. Bruce, Economic 
History of Virginia. The general and state histories, so 
far as they deal with this subject, are commonly inade- 

Labor System and Slavery. — On slavery and the in- 
dustrial servant system, see Waltershausen, Die Arheitsver- 
fas sung der Englischen Kolonien in Nord Amerika, a study 
based largely on secondary authorities. Other papers (all 
in the Johns Hopkins University Studies) are: J. H. John- 
son, Old Maryland Manors; Edward Ingle, Virginia Local 
Institutions; J. C. Ballagh, White Servitude in the Colony 
of Virginia; B. C. Steiner, History of Slavery in Connecticut; 
H. S. Cooley, Study of Slavery in New Jersey; J. S. Bassett, 
History of Slavery in North Carolina. Still others are: 
Edward Bettle, Notices on Negro Slavery in Pennsylvania 
(Pennsylvania Historical Society, Memoirs) ; W. B. Weeden, 
Early African Slave -Trade in New England (American 


Antiquarian Society, Proc^^di«g5,October, 1887) ; A. J.North- 
rup, Slavery in New York (State hihrary, Bulletin History, No. 
4, 1900). 


The accoiint of King Philip's War in the text is based 
on the following: Old Indian Chronicle (2d ed., 1836); 
Thomas Church, Narrative (Dexter's ed., 2 vols., 1865); 
William Hubbard, History of the Indian Wars (Drake's 
ed., 2 vols., 1865); Increase Mather, Relation of Troubles 
with the Indians (1671); John Easton, Relation (Palfrey, 
III., 180); G. M. Bodge, "Soldiers in King Philip's War" 
(New England Historical and Genealogical Register, 31 parts, 
January, 1883 -October, 1890); Edward Randolph's re- 
port {HiUchinson Papers, II., 226-230). 


For the history of the Massachusetts Bay Colony the 
Standard authorities are: Thomas Hutchinson, History of 
th£ Colony of Massachusetts Bay, 1628-1774 (3 vols., 1764- 
1828) ; John G. Palfrey, History of New England During the 
Stuart Dynasty, 1620-1689 (3 vols., 1858-1864). Palfrey's 
work is indispensable, but it is a long and one-sided defence 
of Massachusetts, very deficient on the economic and 
social sides. J. S. Barry, History of Massachusetts (3 vols., 
185 5- 1857), is an excellent work, clear and readable, but 
devoid of originality. Justin Winsor, Memorial History 
of Boston (4 vols., 1880- 1882), has a good chapter (vol. I., 
chap. X.) on the loss of the charter. 

The leading collections of documents for Massachusetts 
and Plymouth are: Records of Massachusetts Bay, 1628- 
1686 (5 vols, in 6, 1853-1854); Records of Plymouth (12 
vols., 1885-1887), of which vols. IX. and X. contain the 
records of the United Colonies. For council proceedings 
we have John Noble, Records of the Court of Assistants, 
1673-1692 (1901); R. N. Toppan, "Andros Records" 
(American Antiquarian Society, Proceedings, October, 

i689] AUTHORITIES 345 

1899); and, more complete, the minutes calendared in the 
Calendars of State Papers, Colonial Series, 1 685-1 688. 

Por the general history of the period, three publications 
of the Prince Society are of first rank and importance, 
finely planned and ably edited: Hutchinson Papers (2 vols., 
1865); W. H. Whitmore, Andros Tracts (3 vols., 1868); and 
R. N. Toppan, Edward Randolph (5 vols., 1898-1899). Of 
the greatest service are the Massachusetts Historical Society 
Collections (63 vols., in seven series), and Proceedings (37 
vols., in two series). Additional serial publications are: 
New England Historical and Genealogical Register (227 
numbers in 62 vols., 1847-1903); American Antiquarian 
Society Collections (7 vols., 1 820-1 885), and Proceedings 
(15 vols., in two series, 1880- 1903); Essex Antiquarian 
(7 vols., 1877-1903); Essex Institute Collections (39 vols., 
1 859-1 902). A partial list of printed town records may be 
found in Channing and Hart, Guide, no, in. 


The history of these colonies diuing the period tmder 
discussion is included in the history of Massachusetts Bay. 
J. Belknap, History of New Hampshire (3 vols. I., 1784, II., 
1792, III., 1792), and W. D. Williamson, History of Maine 
(2 vols., 1829), are the standard authorities. Valuable col- 
lections are: New Hampshire Provincial and State Papers 
(29 vols., 1 867-1 896); J. S. Jenness, Transcripts of Original 
Documents in the English Archives Relating to the Early 
History of the Stale of New Hampshire (1876) ; New Hamp- 
shire Historical Society Collections (10 vols., 1824-1893). 
Documents for the history of Maine may be found in York 
Deeds, 1642-1726 (11 vols., 1887-1896); and Maine His- 
torical Society Collections, 2d series, III. -VIII (1875- 


The best history of Connecticut is Benjamin Trtmibull, 
History of Connecticut (2 vols., 1797, i8i8;newed., indexed. 



1898), which carries the subject to 1794: it says nothing of 
social or economic life ; G. H. Hollister, History of Connecticut 
(2 vols., ist ed., 1855; 2d ed., 1857), carries the subject to 
1857, but is of little value for the period in question. 
Alexander Johnston, Connecticut, in American Common- 
wealth Series (1887, new ed., 1904), is delightful, but is 
influenced by an untenable theory regarding the relation 
between town and state. For sources see The Colonial 
Records of Connecticut (15 vols., 1 850-1 890); Connecticut 
Historical Society Collections (9 vols., i860- 1903), and 
Annual Reports (i 890-1 903), containing valuable lists and 
historical notes. Other publications are. The Acorn Club 
of Connecticut Publications (9 vols., 1899-1904); The 
Connecticut Quarterly, merged in The Connecticut Maga- 
zine (7 vols., 1 895-1 903): full of local color. Boundary 
questions are ably discussed in C. W. Bowcn, Boundary Dis- 
putes of Connecticut (1882). 

New Haven. — E. E. Atwater, History of the Colony of 
New Haven (1881, new ed., 1901), is full and complete, and 
contains many documents. C. H. Levermore, Republic of 
New Haven (1886) , is especially valuable for the period after 
1664. The documentary material is chiefly printed in 
Records of the Colony of New Haven, 1 638-1 665 (2 vols., 
1857-1858), and in New Haven Historical Society Papers 
(6 vols., 1862-1900). 


S. G. Arnold, History of the State of Rhode Island and Prom- 
dcnce Plantations, 1636-1700 (2 vols., 1859-1860; new ed., 
1894), though written in rather a heavy style, is an ad- 
mirable work, scholarly and complete. J. B. Richman, Rhode 
Island, its Making and Meaning [to 1683] (2 vols., 1902), is 
equally scholarly, and more philosophically presented. 
The public records of the colony have been printed in the 
imperfect Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Provi- 
dence Plantations, 1636-1792 (10 vols., 1856-1865). The 
Rhode Island Historical Society has issued Collections 

1689] AUTHORITIES 347 

(9 vols., 1827-1897, to be continued); Proceedings (23 nos., 
1 87 2-1 902, to be continued), and Publications (8 vols., 1893- 
190 1, discontinued). Roger Williams' letters, a collection 
of rare interest and value, appear in Narragansett Club 
Publications^ ist series, No. 4, vol. VI. (6 vols., 1866-1874). 


The literatxire and material for the colonial history of 
New York are very extensive. William Smith, History of 
New York (London, 1757, and later editions; reprinted in 
New York Historical Society Collections, 2 vols., 182 9-1 830), 
is a work deservedly famous. For the period before 1689 
it has been entirely superseded by E. B. 0*Callaghan*s 
History of New Nether land (2 vols., 2ded., 1855), and J. R. 
Brodhead's History of the State of New York (2 vols., 
rev. ed., 1872). Both these standard works are accurate, 
detailed, and well supplied with references. Among the 
works of secondary importance are James Grant Wilson, 
The Memorial History of the City of New York (4 vols., 
1892, vol. I., covering seventeenth centtiry); John Fiske, 
Dutch and Quaker Colonies in America (2 vols., 1899); 
E. A. Roberts, New York, in the American Commonwealth 
Series; and Martha J. Lamb, History of the City of New 
York (2 vols., 1877). 

Documentary materials on New York are voluminous. 
Of first rank are: Documentary History of the State of 
New York (4 vols., 1849-1851; quarto ed., 4 vols., 1850- 
1851); Documents Relative to tfie Colonial History of New 
York (14 vols, and general index, 185 3-1 861); J. Pearson, 
Early Records of the City and County of Albany (1869) 
(entirely documentary); Joel Munsell, Annals of Al- 
bany (10 vols., 1850-1859; revised reprint of vols. 
1-4, 1869- 187 1), and continued in Collections on the 
History of Albany (3 vols., 1865); The Records of New 
Amsterdam, 1653-1674 (7 vols., 1897), contains the min- 
utes of the coiut of burgomasters and schepens during 


the Dutch period. The Dutch colonial laws are printed in 
Laws and Ordinances of New Netherlands 1 638-1 674; the 
"Duke's Laws," in the Collections of the New York 
Historical Society, ist series, I., 307-347; in Laws of 
the Province of Pennsylvania (ed. Linn), 3-77; and in 
Laws of Colonial New York, L, 6-100. Later English 
laws are printed in Laws of Colonial New York (5 vols., 


Valuable materials are found in the New York Historical 
Society Collections, ist series, 5 vols., 3d series or Publica- 
tion Fund Series, 27 vols. ; and in the Long Island Historical 
Society Memoirs (vol. I., 1867). Other doctunents and 
reprints in Historical Magazine, Magazine of American 
History, and American Historical Review, 

For Long Island the standard account is B. F. Thompson, 
History of Long Island (2d ed., 2 vols., 1843), which incor- 
porates bodily the work by Silas Wood, entitled. Sketch of the 
First Settlement of Long Island (1828). The documentary 
history of the region can be found in Documents Relative 
to the Colonial History of New York, vol. XIV., and in 
the town records. 


Samuel Smith, History of the Colony of New Jersey (1765, 
reprinted 1877), besides the text, includes letters and 
documents, some of which cannot be obtained elsewhere. 
W. A. Whitehead, East Jersey under the Proprietary Gov- 
ernments, 1846 {Collections of the New Jersey Historical 
Society, I., 2d ed., enlarged, 1875), with a valuable ap- 
pendix of documents. In J. Whitehead, A Civil and 
Judicial History of New Jersey, is an admirable introduc- 
tory chapter on the constitutional history of colony and 

Documentary materials for New Jersey history are to 
be found in Documents Relating to the Colonial History of 
the State of New Jersey (22 vols., 1 880-1 902): commonly 
cited as New Jersey Archives, A good account of con- 

1689] AUTHORITIES 349 

temporary pamphlet material written to promote emigra- 
tion, in Winsor, Narrative and Critical History, III. 499. 


The best and ablest accotmt of the Society of Friends in 
America from the historical point of view is that of James 
Bowden, History of Friends in America (2 vols., 1851-1854, 
new ed. , 1 86 1 ) , which furnishes an admirable and fair-minded 
survey of the Quaker settlements. The journals of George 
Fox and William Edmtmdson, each issued in many editions, 
give graphic pictures of the condition of the Quakers in 
America in 1671 and 1672. The following special essays 
may be noted: Henry Ferguson, Essays in American 
History (1894); Caroline Hazard, The Narragansett Friends 
Meeting (1899); A. C. Applegarth, The Quakers in Penn- 
sylvania {Johns Hopkins University Studies, X., nos. 8, 9); 
H. R. Mcllwaine, Struggle of Protestant Dissenters for 
Religious Toleration in Virginia (ibid., XII., no. 4). There 
is no satisfactory life of William Penn: Thomas Clarkson, 
Memoirs of William Penn (2 vols., 181 3; new ed., 1849), is 
still valuable, though one-sided and incomplete. S. M. 
Janney, Life of Penn (1852), is the best and most trust- 
worthy, though the author is interested in the religious 
rather than in the political side of Penn*s career. W. H. 
Dixon, William Penn (185 1, new eds., 1856, 1872), is in- 
terestingly written, but idealizes the Stuarts, and frequently 
makes statements not borne out by the evidence. 

The oldest history of the colony is Robert Proud, History 
of Pennsylvania in North America, 1 681-1742, with an 
appendix of doctmients (2 vols., 1 797-1 798); it is still a 
very useful and important work. T. F. Gordon, History of 
Pennsylvania to 1776 (1829), is an accurate but lifeless 
treatise, with little in it to attract the reader. W. H. Egle, 
Illustrated History of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 
(1880), is a co-operative undertaking chiefly of local in- 
terest. Sidney D. Fisher, The Making of Pennsylvania 
(1896), is strictly a popular work. W. R. Shepherd's 


scholarly History of Proprietary Government in Pennsylvania 
(Columbia University Studies, VI., 1896), is written in a hard 
and often confused style, appealing only to students. Special 
works of importance are Isaac Sharpless, History of Quaker 
Government in Pennsylvania (2 vols., 1 898-1 899) : a very able 
interpretation of the history of the colony from the Quaker 
point of view. Glenn, Merion in the Welsh Tract; J.J. Levick, 
John ap Thomas aftd his Friends (Pa. Magazine, IV.) ; S. W. 
Pennypacker, Settlement of Germantown (1899), and A. C. 
Myers, Immigration of the Irish Quakers into Pennsylvania^ 
1682-1750 ( 1 902 ) , are important contributions to the subject. 
The docimientary material for the early history of Penn- 
sylvania is scattered. There is no complete collection of 
Penn's letters. Valuable materials appear in Samuel Hazard, 
Annals, 1 609-1 682 (1850); SdaxiMeX'RBZQX&, Register of Penn- 
sylvania (16 vols., 1 828-1 834) ; J. F. Watson, Annals of Phil- 
adelphia (1830). The Historical Society of Pennsylvania 
has published Memoirs (14 vols., 1826-189 5); and the 
valuable Magazine of History and Biography (27 vols.. 
1877 -1903). The acts and proceedings of the Pennsyl- 
vania council and assembly can be foimd in the following: 
Colonial Records, 1683-1736 (3 vols., 1838-1840; reprinted 
with different pagination, and continued to 1790 in 16 
vols., 1852); Pennsylvania Archives, ist series, I.; Votes 
of Assembly, i662-iyy6 (6 vols., 1752-1776); Charters and 
Laws of the Province of Pennsylvania (1879); particularly 
The Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania, vols. 1 1. -VII. (1899, 
ed. Hildebum). 


The materials for the history of Delaware are scanty, 
and no satisfactory history of the colony has been written. 
Benjamin Ferris, A History of the Original Settlements on 
the Delaware (1846), closes with 1682; Francis Vincent, 
History of Delaware (1870-187 1), ends at 1664. J. T. 
Scharf, History of Delaware (2 vols., 1888), is similar in 
mode of treatment to his history of Maryland and equally 
poor. The Historical Society of Delaware has issued a 

1689] AUTHORITIES 351 

series of Papers (37 numbers, 1879-1903), chiefly of a 
biographical character. Documents Relative to the Colonial 
History of New York, XII., includes papers on the Dutch 
and Swedish settlements on the Delaware. 


The best general authorities on Virginia are J. A. Doyle, 
English Colonies in America, I., chap, vii.; Charles Camp- 
bell, History of the Colony and Ancient Dominion of Virginia 
(1847); and John Fiske, Old Virginia and her Neighbors 
(1897). No one of these works is entirely satisfactory. Of 
the older writers, J. D. Burk, History of Virginia (2 vols., 
1805), is the best, giving many details not fotmd elsewhere 
and printing valuable appendices. Robert Beverly, History 
of Virginia (1722) ; Hartwell, Blair, and Chilton, An Account 
of the Present State and Government of Virginia (1727), and 
Hugh Jones, Present State of Virginia (1724, Sabin reprint, 
octavo, no. 5), have almost the value of original documents. 

The greatest and the essential collection of original 
material for Virginia's history is W. W. Hening, Statutes at 
Large, 1619-1792 (13 vols., 1823). Next in importance is the 
Calendar of Virginia State Papers, still in process of publica- 
tion. Many documents of the first importance are printed in 
the Virginia Magazine of History and Biography (9 vols., 
1 893-1 903), and in the William and Mary College Quar- 
terly (11 vols., 1 89 2-1 903). Occasional doctunents may be 
found in the Historical Magazine aftd Notes and Queries (3d 
series, 23 vols., 1857-1875). John Thurloe, State Papers (7 
vols., 1 742), contain material for Virginia's history from 1650 
to 1660; while the Calendars of State Papers, Colonial, is a 
mine of information throughout. Peter Force, Tracts, I., 
contains reprints of some able pamphlets. For Bacon's 
rebellion we have the Calendars, IV., V., and five con- 
temporary accounts of the movement: (i) The Beginning, 
Progress, and Conclusion of Bacon's Rebellion in Virginia, 
by T. M. (probably Thomas Mathews, a member of the 
assembly in 1676); (2) Mrs. Ann Cotton of Q Creek, 

"'■• - -■' rmww^^i^- 


An Account of our Late Troubles in Virginia (the briefest 
and most reliable of all); (3) A Narrative of the Indian 
and Civil Wars in Virginia (Massachusetts Historical So- 
ciety, Collections, 2d series, L, 27-80) — all three reprinted 
in Force's Tracts, and in American Colonial Tracts; (4) 
The Report of the Commissioners to the King; (5) A Re- 
view, Breviary, and Conclusion drawn from the foregoing 
Narrative, being a Summary Account of the late Rebellion in 
Virginia, together the best extant accotint ; both in Calen^ 
dars of State Papers, Colonial, 167 7-1 680, nos. 437-439. but 
nowhere printed in full. 


J. A. Doyle's treatment of Maryland's history is one of 
the least satisfactory in his work ; and on the revolution 
of 1689 it is distinctly misleading. J. V. L. McMahon, 
Historical View of the Government of .Maryland (183 1), 
considering the inadequacy of the material then available, 
is a remarkable book. J. L. Bozman, History of Mary- 
land, to 1658 (2 vols., 1837), is a classic, full, accurate, and 
impartial though diffuse. James McSherry, History of 
Maryland (1849), is merely a readable compilation. 
William Hand Browne, Maryland, the History of a 
Palatinate (1884), and George and Cecilius Calvert (1890), 
are based upon full knowledge of the subject, but are not al- 
ways written with anxmbiasedpen ; the elaborate J. T. Scharf, 
History of Maryland (3 vols., 1879), is in many respects 
what a history should not be: it contains valuable material* 
crudely organized, badly arranged, and unreadable. The 
admirable scientific study by N. D. Mereness, Maryland as a 
Proprietary Colony (1901), is a series of essa5rs analyzing 
the government and organization of the colony. 

Maryland possesses a splendid mass of doctimentary 
material for the writing of her history. The Archives of 
Maryland (23 vols., 1 883-1 903), published by the Mary- 
land Historical Society, is composed of the acts of assem- 
bly (to 1699), journals of council (to 1779), court records, 

1689] AUTHORITIES 353 

Governor Sharp's correspondence, and many documents 
from the Public Record Office, London. The Maryland 
Historical Society has issued Fund Publications (37 vols., 
1 867-1 901), and over sixty occasional papers and reports. 
Thomas Bacon's edition of the Laws of Maryland (1765) con- 
tains the titles of laws not otherwise known. 

Bozman is the chief guide for the period to 1658, and after 
1650 may be supplemented by documents in John Thurloe, 
State Papers, the Calendars, and the Archives, Among rare 
pamphlets are: Lord Baltimore, Case Concerning the Province 
of Maryland (1653) ; Virginia and Maryland ^ or Lord Balti- 
more's Case uncased and answered (1655); Leonard Strong, 
Babylon's Fall in Maryland, a fair warning to Lord Balti- 
more (1655), upholds the Puritan cause ; compare John Lang- 
ford in A Just and Clere Refutation of ** Babylon's Fall** 
(1655). Two admirable monographs have been written: F. 
E. Sharp, Causes of the Revolution of i68g in Maryland 
{Johns Hopkins University Studies, XIV. nos. 11, 12), is 
rather unfair to the proprietary ; B. C. Steiner, The Protestant 
Revolution in Maryland (American Historical Association, 
Report, 1897, 281-353), minimizes the revolutionary spirit. 

The controversy between Lord Baltimore and William 
Penn has never been fairly written. For the Maryland 
side of the case: W. H. Browne, Maryland; Archer, Dis- 
memberment of Maryland (Fund Publications, no. 30), with 
an undignified show of temper ; more temperately, but still 
not impartially, N. D. Mereness, Maryland as a Proprietary 
Colony, 29-33. For ^^^ Pennsylvania side, W. B. Scaife, in 
Pennsylvania Magazine, IX., 241-271; Pennsylvania Mag- 
azine, Yl., 412-434; W. R. Shepherd, Proprietary Govern- 
ment in Pennsylvania, 1 1 7-1 46 (confused). 


For the early history of South Carolina, W. J. Rivers, 
Sketch of the History of South Carolina to 171 g (1856), has 
long been the standard authority, and has not by any means 
been superseded by a longer and more elaborate volume, 

VOL. V. — 23 



Edward McCrady, South Carolina under the Proprietary 
Government (1897). Little tise can be made of the older his- 
tories, Alexander Hewatt, Historical Account of the Rise and 
Progress of South Carolina and Georgia (3 vols., 1779), and 
David Ramsay, History of South Carolina (2 vols., 1809, 2d 
ed., 1858). In a series called Year-Book, City of Charleston 
(4 vols., 1 883-1 886), Mayor Conrtenay began a new era in 
the historiography of the state by printing a number of ex- 
ceedingly valuable contemporary relations. The Records 
of North Carolina (16 vols., 1886- 1902) is a collection 
of rare value and importance for both Carolinas. The 
South Carolina Historical Society Collections, V., contains 
The Shaftesbury Papers (1897). A comparison of the 
originals, thus published, with the abstracts in the Calen- 
dars shows how inadequate often are the Calendars for his- 
torical purposes. 

On North Carolina the best work is F. L. Hawks, His- 
tory of North Carolina (2 vols., 1857-1858), although it is 
marred by prejudice. In the Johns Hopkins University 
Studies are three monographs of importance: S. C. Hughson, 
Carolina Pirates and Colonial Commerce (XII., nos. 2 to 7) ; 
E. L. Whitney, Government of the Colony of South Carolina 
(XIII., nos. I and 2) ; and J. S. Bassett, Constitutional Be- 
ginnings of North Carolina (XII., no. 3). 


For the island colonies, so important in their connection 
with the early history of the Carolinas, see R. H. Schom- 
burgk, History of Barbadoes (1848) ; J. H. Lefroy, Memorials 
of the Bermudas, 1511-1687 (2 vols., 1877-1879), and N. D. 
Davis, The Cavaliers and Roundheads of Barbadoes, i6§o- 
1652 (1887). 


Accomack, in Bacon's rebel- 
lion, 219-221. 

Acts of Trade. See Navigation 

Administration. See Colonies 
and colonies by name. 

Admiralty. See Courts. 

Agents, colonial ,36,176; Massa- 
chusetts, 259. 

Albany, named, 8^; charter, 98; 
yields to Leisler, 285; ap- 
pearance, 298. 

Albemarle. See North Carolina. 

Amstd, fort, captured, 81; 
called New Castle, 83. 

Andros, Sir Edmtmd, governor 
of New York, character and 
views, 90. 93, 269, 275; re- 
duces Long Island towns, 
91; attempt on Connecticut, 
91; and the Jerseys, 92, 118- 
120; and tne Indians, 92; 
administration, ^3; on rep- 
resentation, 93; m England, 
94 » 951 governor of New 
England, 266; in Massachu- 
setts, 268; task, 269; crushes 
Connecticut and lUiode Isl- 
and, 270, 2ji\ captain- 
general, 272; m New York, 
272; autocracy, 274; charge 
against, 275; overthrown, 

Arlington, earl of, grant of 
Virginia, 214. 

Ashley, Lord, in colonial cotm- 
cil> 23, 24, 26; and Carolina 

grant, 132, 138; and Funda- 
mental Constitution, 139- 
143; Bahama grant, 145; 
colonial enterprise, 145. 
Assembly. See Representation. 

Bacon's rebellion, causes, 215; 
relation, 216; Bacon as 
leader, 217; controversy 
with Berkeley, 217; Bacon 
pardoned, 217; reforming as- 
sembly, 218; second expedi- 
tion, 218; Berkeley's mght, 
219; formal rebellion, 219; 
supporters, 220; calls as- 
sembly, 220; siege of James- 
town, 221; death of Bacon, 
221; collapse, 221; execu- 
tions, 222; mvestigation, 222; 
Berkeley condemned, 224; 
effects 225. 

Bahamas, grant (1670), 145. 

Baltimore, Cecilius, Lord, pro- 
prietary of Maryland, 232; 
and Ftotestants, 233; and 
conmiissioners, 233; insists 
on title, 234; proposed oath, 
234; and Cromwell, 235. 236, 
238; appoints Pendall gov- 
ernor, 238; agreement with 
Puritans, 2^9; sticcess, 240; 
quarrel witn Virginia, 241; 
conciliates Charles II., 241; 
enforces navigation acts, 244; 
death, 244. 

Baltimore, Charles, Lord, and 
Penn, 170, 174, 187, 194, 





247, 250; governor of Mary- 
land, 244; becomes proprie- 
tary, 244; character, 244; 
political ring, 245; goes to 
England, 246; quarrel with 
revenue officers, 248; loses 
ground, 248; opposition to, 
280; loses provinces, 281, 
282; Payne aifair, 282 

Barbadoes, parliamentary fleet, 
4; discontent, 131; settlers 
for Carolina, 134-138, 146; 
charter, 135; trade, 316. 

Barclay, David, and Jersey, 


Barclay, Robert, and Jersey, 
125-127, 264. 

Bellomont, Lord, and New 
Jersey trade, 326. 

Bennett, governor of Virginia, 
205; commissioner, 236; re- 
port, 237; adjustment, 239. 

Berkeley, John, Lord, con- 
spiracy against New Nether- 
land, 77, 78; grant of New 
Jersey, 80, 101-104, 113; 
career, 102; concessions, 104; 
sells his grant, 114; proprie- 
tary of Carolina, 133. 

Berkeley, Sir William, and the 
parliamentary commission, 
202; elected governor, 206, 
207; royal instructions, 207; 
autocratic power, 208; in- 
difference to Indian war, 216; 
outlaws Bacon, 217; pardons 
Bacon, 217; reform assem- 
bly, 218; again outlaws 
Bacon, 219; flight, 219; re- 
venge, 221; hangs Drum- 
mond, 222; recalled 222; 
flouts commissioners, 222; 
disgrace, 224; death, 224; 
state, 304; on education, 310. 

Bermudas, navigation act, 39; 
charter 39. 

Bibliographies, of period 1652- 
1689, 337-354. . 

Bishop, proposed colomal, 307. 

Boston, Episcopal church, 267, 
30^; Andros in, 269, 274; 
rising, 277; appearance, 297. 

Boundaries, New En^^and-New 
Netherland, 42; Massachu- 
setts, Rhode Island, and 
Connecticut, 45, 65-67; Con- 
necticut-New Haven, 52; 
Connecticut charter, 55; 
York's grant, 80 ; New York- 
Connecticut, 81, 98; New 
York-Pennsylvania, 98, ijo- 
171; East and West New 
Jersey, 116, 117; Carolina, 

'33» '3^1 Pennsylvania - 
Maryland, 170-173, 180. 187. 
247, 250, 353; Maryland- 

Dielaware. 174; general 
(1689), 288. 

Bradstreet, Simon, and Dutch 
war, 43; president, 277. 

Branford, migration, 61. 

Brockholls, as governor of New 
York, 94. 

Burlington, settled, 120; pot- 
tery, 123; seat of govern- 
ment, 124; trade, J23. 

Byllynge, Edward, buys West 
New Jersey, 114; and Fen- 
wick, lie; fails, 116; grant 
from York, 122; death, 123. 

Calvert, Philip, in Maryland, 
241 ; proclaims amnesty, 242. 
Canoncnet, Chief, 255. 
Canonicus, Chief, 2J3. 
Cardross, Lord, settlement, 151, 

Carolina, Scott on, 105; Heath's 

grant, 130, 134; Spanish 
claim, 130; Tavemers ex- 
pedition, 130; origin of grant, 
132; charters, 133, 138; 
counter claims, 134; govern- 
ment, 135-137. 146, 147. 
151; Ftmdamental Consti- 
tution, 139-142, 153, 156, 
157; Ashley's promotion ,145; 
social conditions, 288-313! 



bibliography, 353. See also 
North Carolina, South, South 

Carr, Robert, commissioner, 69, 
70, 79; and Fort Amstel, 81. 

Carteret, ^r George, conspiracy 
against New Netherland, 77, 
78; New Jersey grant, 80, 
101-104, 1 13 1 career, 102; 
Concessions, 104; trustees, 
125; proprietary of Carolina, 

133. 146. 
Carteret, James, in New Jersey, 


Carteret, Peter, governor of 
North Carolina, 159. 

Carteret, Philip, governor of 
New Jersey, and New York 
customs duties, 94, no; and 
the settlers, 107, 109; Wood- 
bridge charter, 108; returns, 
113; and Andros, 119; resigns, 
125; governor of Maryland, 

Cart Wright f George, commis- 
sioner, 69, 70, 79; captures 
Fort Orange, 81. 

Catholics, in Maryland, 233, 
235. 236, 246, 305; rumored 
plots, 230, 274-276. 

Cnarles I., trade council, 4. 

Charles II., fiscal and colonial 
policy, 14-17; and proprie- 
tary colonies, 38; and Mas- 
sachusetts, 47, 48, 71, 72; 
proclaimed, 51. 65, 233; com- 
missioners to New England, 
69; on Bacon's rebellion, 
221-224; annuls Maryland 
charter, 233; favors Kirke, 

Charles Town (Carolina) settled, 
142; political conditions, 143; 
new settlers, 145, 146; new 
site, 149; appearance, 301; 
trade, 316. 

Charters, Massachusetts con- 
firmed, 48; annulled, 264: 
new, 279; Connecticut, 53- 

jS, 68, 69, 270, 278; Rhode 
Island, 66-69, 270, 278; New 
Amsterdam, 76; New York 
City (1665), 84; 068O, 98; 
Carolina, 133; Barbadoes 
(1652), 1^5; Pennsylvania, 
171 » 1751 Virginia proposed, 
214, 226; and navigation 
acts, 258; Massachusetts an- 
nulled, 264; Maryland lost, 
282. See also Constitutions. 

Chicheley, Sir Henry, in Vir- 
ginia, 216, 222, 224. 

Cmistina, Fort, 4. 

Church, Benjamin, King Phil- 
ip's war, 255. 

Church of England, toleration 
ordered in Massachtisetts, 48; 
in Virginia, 207, 304; in New 
England, 267, 306; estab- 
lished, J04; in Maryland, 305; 
in middle colonies, 306; pro- 
I)osed bishopric, 307. 

Cities in 1689, 297. 

City government. New Amster- 
dam, 76; New York, 84, 98; 
Philaaelphia, a 00. 

Clarendon, earl of, navigation 
act, 11; trade, 14-16; in 
colonial coimcil, 23; and 
Massachusetts, 71, 72; fall, 
72; proprietary, 133. 

Clarke, John, colonial agent, 
36; faction, 62; and patent, 
64; efforts for charter, 66; 
and Connecticut boimdary, 
66, 67. 

Coddington, William, settles 
Newport, 62; faction, 62; 
rule and fall, 63-65. 

Colleton, James, governor of 
South Carolina, 155-157. 

Colleton, Sir John, in Bar- 
badoes, 132; and grant of 
Carolina, 1^2. 

Colleton, Sir Peter, concessions, 
135; proprietary, 146. 

Colleton, Thomas, expedition, 



Colonial system. See Naviga- 
tion acts. 

Colonies, distribution (1650), 
3; early English administra- 
tion, 4; parliamentary con- 
trol, 4, c, 10; conditions of 
control (1650- 1689), 6-10; 
self - government, 9 ; trade 
policy, IX, 74; interest of 
Charles II., 16, 17; cotmcils 
and committees, 32-26; 
Lords of Trade, 26, 28-30; 
assents, 36; English review 
of legislation, 37; plan for 
consolidation, 37-39; ig- 
norance of James II., 97, 100; 
Ashley'senterprise, 145 ; bibli- 
ograpny on navigation acts, 
340; on social life, 340-343*. 
on economic conditions, 343 ; 
on individual colonies, 344- 
354. See also Economic con- 
ditions. Manufactures, Navi- 
gation acts, Social life, Trade, 
and colonies and sections by 

Colve, and the Long Island 
towns, 89; as governor, 90. 

Commission, royal (1664), 69- 

7i» 79- 

Commonwealth. See Parlia- 

Concessions. See Constitutions. 

Congregationalism, in New Eng- 
land, ^08; in New Jersey, 309. 

Connecticut, admiralty court, 
35; crowds out Dutch, 48, 
76; annexes Long Island 
towns, 49, 89; growth, 49; 
franchise limited, 49, 55; 
character, 49, 55; insecurity 
of title, 50; and the Warwick 
patent, 50, 5^; and the 
regicides, 51; New Haven 
boundary, j2 ; petition to the 
Icing, 52; charter, 52-55, 68 
charter boundaries, 55, 59 
absorbs New Haven, 59-61 
Rhode Island botmdary, 66 

and ^le royal commission, 
70; New York boundary, 81, 
98; and York's daim, 91; 
Randolph and charter, 265, 
268, 270; charter withdrawn, 
271; annexed to New Eng- 
land, 271; resumes govern- 
ment. 278; population (1689), 

288; schools, 310; biblic^- 

. , 34"?. See c' 

«^phy. 345- 

also New 

Constitutions, New York(i683) , 
96-98; New Jersey (1665), 
104; West New Jersey 
(1677), 121; Carolina (1665), 
135-137; Fimdamental, 139- 
142, 153. 156, 157; Pennsyl- 
vania (1682), 183, 191 ; (168O . 
193. See also Charters. 

Coode, John, risings, 249, 280. 

Cooper. See Ashley. 

Com, Indian, food, 294; in 
Virginia, 316. 

Cotton, export, 18; manufact- 
ure, 317. 

Council, in South Carolina, 
147; in Pennsylvania, 184, 
193, 106; in Maryland, 241. 

Cotmcil tor Foreign Plantations 
(1660), members, 23; duties 
and activities, 24; consoli- 
dated (1672), 24; duties, 25; 
weakness, 25; joint control, 
25; abolished, 26; opposes 
proprietaries, 38; and Mas- 
sachusetts, 47; plan against 
New Netherland, 77. 

Council for Trade (1660), 23; 
consolidated, 24, 25. 

Coimty government in Virginia, 

Courts, colonial admiralty, 31, 
35, 266; appeal to king, 176; 
county, in Virginia, 210, 211. 

Coxe, Daniel, interest in New 
Jersey, 123, 124. 

Cromwell, Oliver, commercial 
ambition, 1 1 ; navigation 
act, 11-13; and Massadm- 



setts, 47; project to trans- 
port colonists, 57; and Vir- 
ginia, 203-206; and Mary- 
land, 235, 236; and Balti- 
more, 239, 240. 

Culpeper, Lord, and Virginia, 
214, 226, 227. 

Ctistoms, export, 20, 160, 211; 
control, 31; fanning, 31; 
of&cials, 33-35; New York- 
New Jersey controversy, 94, 
09, 119, 127, 325-327; in 
Virginia, 227; in Maryland, 

Davenant, governor of Mary- 
land, 233. 

Davenport, John, and Con- 
necticut, 59, 6i. 

Delaware, Penn acqtiires, 173; 
Maryland claims, iy4; an- 
nexed to Pennsylvania, 186; 
desires separation, 1 99 ; trade, 
320; bibliography, 350. 

Digges, Edward, colonial rev- 
enue ofl&cial, 32; proposed 
as governor, 205. 

Disease in the colonies, 293. 

Dongan, Thomas, as governor 
of I^ew York, 95, 98; and the 
Indians, 99. 

Downing, Sir George, and navi- 
gation act, 14, 17; hostilitv 
to Dutch, 77; at Harvard, 

Drummond, William, in Ba- 
con's rebellion, 220, 222. 

Dudley, Joseph, president, 266. 

Duke*8 Laws, 8 j ; popular sanc- 
tion, 85; trouble over, 86-89. 

Dyer, Mary, hanged, 46. 

East New Jersey, and New 
York customs duties, 94, 
119, 127, J25-327; quinti- 
partite deed, 117; botmdary, 
117; jurisdiction over, 119; 
concessions, 125; Quakers 
control, 125; new code, 126; 

Lawrie governor, 126; pro- 
motion, 126; agrictdtural, 
127; annexed to New York, 
127; restored, 127; royal 
provinces, 127; weakness, 
127; grant asked (1682), 
264; population (1689), 288; 
trade, 322-327 ; bibliography, 
348. See also New Jersey. 

Eastchurch, governor of North 
Carolina, 159. 

Easthampton, and Connecticut, 
49, 88, 89, 91. 

Economic conditions, in gen- 
eral, 314-336; southern prod- 
ucts, 314-319; middle prod- 
ucts, 3 1 9-3 2 1 ; ship - build- 
ing, 321, 331, 332; middle 
commerce, 3 2 2 — 3 24 ; New 
Jersey products, 324; New 
Jersey commerce, 324-327; 
New York products, 327; 
New York commerce, 328; 
New England products, 329; 
fisheries, 330; New England 
commerce, 333; manufact- 
ures, 334-336; bibliography, 
343. . 

Education, schools, 191, 310; 
colleges, 311. 

Elizabeth, settled, 106; Car- 
teret in, 107; trade, 324. 

England, colonial policy, 6-10; 
Dutch war (1652), 12; (1673), 
89; Dutch, 77-79; bibUog- 
raphy on colonial policy, 
339; on navigation acts, 
339; on administrative or- 
gans, 340. See also sovereigns 
oy name. 

Pendall, Josias, governor of 
Maryland, 238; opposes Bal- 
timore, 241; resigns, 241; de- 
notmced, 242; renews agita- 
tion, 24^. 

Fen wick, John, interest in West 
New Jersey, 11 4-1 16; settle- 
ment, 118; and Andros, zig; 



feCs, 122; m the iwfmbly. 
Ftther. yUtrf, dii'*txi feom Sfas^ 

Vf^A, m crArxatt, 29)— 397; is 

flotsth, 315, 
Fcflc, Gcr>rge, in America, 114. 

164, i6jc. 
rntnct, Enjfiah war (1689), 



mA. Ji^ 

Free Society oC Traders, 181. 

rtmdsanenUl G>fisti tution , 1 39- 

« »4», i$3' '5^* «57 

For tra/le« Coxe promctes, 1 23 ; 

colonial, 319, 320, 

Pumtture, colonial, 302. 

Oermamtowk settled, 189. 

G^/r^es, Ferdinando. ;^ant and 
MaiMachtuetts, 45, 72, 261. 

G<^vemment, Pcnn on, 182, 
183. .S>e a/50 Colonies, and 
c^ilonics by name. 

Govemr/fs, commissions, 29; 
Tt\Atum to navigation acts, 
30; and admiralty, 31; cus- 
Ujms officers, 31; elective, 
in West New Jersey, 123; 
in Pennsylvania, 184, 193, 
198, 199; salary in Virginia, 
227; quarrels in Maryland, 

Greenwich, Connecticut claims, 

Guilford, controversy, 59. 

Habeas corpus claimed, 276. 

Hartford, appearance, 298. 

I larvard College, 311,312. 

Heath. Robert, grant, 130, 134. 

Holland, settlements, 4; con- 
quers Swedish colony, 4; 
controls carrying- trade, 10; 
and the navigation act, 11- 
13; English war (1652), 12, 
43; (^673), 89; English com- 

HiinflnnT Trff, 46. 

fjooGKATios procacted. 24. 
ImprisoozDeot for debu 122. 
Independeoce, spirit in 
i cimsetts (i664>. 2cS. 
Indians, attach co !(ew Hai^ea 

58: and XiooQs. S3: mad. 

bcngan, 99; and Chariescon. 

143; war in Somh Carctina. 

150; Soath Caroiina trade. 

152; Peon's dealings. 17S, 

181, 188; Mrjxnia war (1675 r. 

215—218; \imnia treaty. 

225; King PhiHp's War. 253 

-256; poor servants, 291; 

bibliography. 344. 
: Ipswich protest, 268. 276. 
Iron, manuiactore, 317. 

'Jamaica, Long Island, pro- 
test. 87. 93. 

James I., trade council. 4. 

James II., and colonial con- 
solidation, 39, 97; and Xew 
York charter, 96^8; igno- 
rance, 97, 100; upholds How- 
ard, 230; Maryland loyalty. 
250; appoints Andros, 266; 
loses tnrone, 273; promises 
Massachusetts charter, 278. 
See also York. 

Jamestown, Bacon and, 217. 
220, 221. 

Jeffreys, Herbert, governor of 
Virginia, 223; commissioner, 
223-225; death. 226. 

Jury trial in West New Jersey, 

Keith, George, schism, 200. 
Kent Island, renewed dispute, 


■ rf ^ 




King Philip's War, Andres's 
interest, 92; occasion, 253; 
fighting, 2^4; ravages. 254; 
death of Philip, 255; results. 


Land grants, in Carolinas, 
139, 154; in Pennsylvania, 
178; in Maryland and Vir- 
ginia, 243. . ^^ 

Lawrie, Gawen, interest in New 

Jersey, 116, 126. 

Lawyers, discouraged, 313. 

Legislation, English review of 
colonial, 37, 176; in Penn- 
sylvania, 186; in New York 
(1691), 287. See also Con- 

Leisler rebellion, caus^, 283, 
284; Leisler's leadership, 284; 
his rule. 284, 285; action of 
Lords of Trade. 285; Leisler 
overthrown and hanged, 286; 
no treason. 286; resiuts, 287. 

Literature, colonial. 312. 

Lloyd, Thomas, opposes Black- 
well, ip8; governor of Penn- 
sylvania, 199. 

Local government. See City, 
County, Town. 

Locke, John, in trade council, 
24; Fundamental Constitu- 
tion, 139-142. 

Long Island, Connecticut towns, 
49 f 55. 88, 89; complaints 
against Dutch, 77; granted 
to York, 80, 82; and Duke's 
Laws, 85 - 88 ; submits to 
Andros, 91; trade, 328; bib- 
liography, 348. 

Lords of Trade, organization 
(1675), 26; colonial control, 
28-30; information. 29; re- 
cords, 29; governors* com- 
missions, 29; execution of 
navigation acts, 30; igno- 
rance, 30; on colonial con- 
solidation, 38, 39, 97, 264. 
265; last meeting. 40; suc- 

cessor. 40; on Delaware, 174. 
195; censures Berkeley. 224; 
and Maryland. 248; and Mas- 
sachusetts, 252, 259, 263; 
and Baltimore, 281 ; and Leis- 
ler, 285; and East New 
Jersey. 326. 
Lovelace, Francis, and the 
Long Island towns, 87-89. 

Maine, Massachusetts claims, 
45. 72. 261; grant to York, 
80; authorities, 345. 

Manufactures, colonial raw ma- 
terial, 18; colonial market, 
19; Burlineton pottery, 123; 
in Pennsylvania, ipi, 322; 
in Virginia, J17; ships, 321; 
in New England. 322, 333- 


Markham, William, m Penn- 
sylvania, 179, 180. 

Maryland, parliamentary com- 
mission, 45, 233. 235. 239; 
admiralty court, 36; and the 
navigation acts, 39, 244; 
persecutes Quakers, 163; 
Dotmdary disputes. 1 71-175, 
180, 187, 247, 353; tobacco 
culture, 228, 243; charter an- 
nulled (1645), 232; early 
conditions, 232; hostility 
of Commonwealth, 233 ; Prot- 
estant settlements, 233; 
charter annulled by Charles 
II., 233; oath of fidelity, 
234; breach with Puritans, 
235; Protectorate proclaim- 
ed, 235; Puritans rise, 236; 
rival governors, 236; Crom- 
well's rebuke, 236; battle on 
Severn, 237 ; Puritan suprem- 
acy, 238; Fendall's gov- 
ernment, 238; investigation, 
239; Baltimore successful, 
239, 240; Kent Island, 240; 
struggle over council, 241; 
Charles II. acknowledges 
Baltimore, 242; economic 



conditions, 242 ; Charles Cal- 
vert governor. 244; squab- 
bles, 245; ring. 245; Notley 
governor, 246; ' sedition 
(1677), 246; difficulty with 
royal officers. 248; pro- 
poised quo warranto, 248; 
Fendall's sedition, 249; loyal- 
ty to James IL, 250; political 
conditions, 250; excitement 
(1688), 27p; revolution, 279- 
281; Baltimore ousted, 281 
282; royal province, 282 
population (1689), 288 
social conditions. 288-313 
towns, 300; churches, 305 
products, 314; exports, 318 
Dibliography, 352. See also 
Middle colonies. 
Massachusetts, admiralty court, 
j5. 266; control over her 
laws, 37; illegal trade. 39, 
253. 259; quo warranto 
a^^ainst, 39, 262: and the 
New England Confederation. 
43. 45; pre-eminence, 44; as- 
sumes sovereign powers, 44; 
self-content, 45; aids La 
Tour, 45; boundary disputes, 
45; annexes New Hamp- 
shire and Maine. 45, 72; 
religious persecutions, 46; 
and Cromwell, 47; and 
Charles II., 47, 48, 71, 72; 
charter confirmed. 48 ; tolera- 
tion ordered. 48; and Con- 
necticut's river tolls. 50; 
and the regicides, 51; and 
the royal commission, 70, 71 ; 
sense of security (1668), 72; 
charges against, 252, 257; 
Randolph in. 256, 266; oath 
question, 258; spirit of inde- 

fendence, 258; and acts of 
arliament, 258; a.2:ents de- 
layed, 259; Randolph's com- 
plaints. 260-262; New Hamp- 
shire separated, 261; Maine 
separated, 26 1 ; report against, 

262; scire facias iasoed, 364; 
charter annulled, 264; in 
dominion o€ New En^iEuid, 
265; Dudley's prcsideiK7, 
266; towns protest, a68; 
Andros's activity, 269; An- 
dros's government, 374—276; 
no assembly, 276; revohitiQn, 
277; charter promised, 378; 
cnarter granted, 279; poptua- 
tion (1689), 288; social life, 
288-313; schools, 310; Har- 
vard College, 311, 312; man- 
ufactures, 3J3; bibliography, 
344. See also New Englana. 

Massasoit, Chief, 253. 

Mathews, governor of \^rginia, 
205, 206; commissioner to 
Maryland, 239. 

Mavenck, Samuel, commission- 
er, 69, 70. 79. 

Mercantile system. 6-10; ap- 
plication. 336. See a^o 
Navigation acts. 

Middle colonies, races. 289; 
servants, 292; food, 296; 
towns, 297-300; transporta- 
tion, 301; ceremonial, 302; 
churches, 306; sects, 309; 
education , 310; products, 
319-321; trade, 320-329. 
See also colonies by name. 

Miller, collector, 33; as gov- 
ernor of North Carolina, 159. 

Moore, Nicholas, political com- 
ment, 192; impeached, 197. 

Nantucket, grant to York, 80. 

Narragansetts in King Philip's 
War, 254, 255. 

Naturalization in Pennsylvania, 

Naval officer, colonial, 32, 262. 

Navigation acts, beginning. 5; 
(i6ci), 11; enforcement, 13; 
(1600) causes, 13-17; ship- 
ping clause, 17; enumer- 
ated commodities, 18 — 21, 
30; reshipment in England, 



19; execution and evasion, 
20. 36-32, 38. 155. 158. 176, 
244, 253. 259-262, 266; juris- 
diction over, 35; (1651) in 
Virginia, 20^; effect on ship- 
pwig. 331; bibliography, 339, 
New Amsterdam, charter, 76; 
surrender, 81; bibliography, 

New Castle, named, 83; Penn 

acquires, 173; annexed to 

Pennsylvania, 186. 

New England, population 
(i 650) , 3 ; preparation against 
New Netherland, 13, 43; vio- 
lation of navigation acts, 
30; collectors of customs, 34; 
reason for union (1686), 39; 
unity, 41 ; and the crown, 41 ; 
self-government, 42; royal 
commission, 69, 70; settlers 
in New Jersey, 107-109; 
trade, 131, 158, 159, 253, 
331 ; King Phihp's War, 253- 
256; Randolph in, 260; do- 
minion, 265; Andros govern- 
or, 266; no assembly, 266; 
attack on charters, 267 ; con- 
solidated, 269; larger union 
proposed, 271; Andros cap- 
tain-general, 272; races, 289; 
slaves, 290; servants, 291; 
food, 206; buildings, 297; 
social life, 302; Episcopacy, 
306; Congregationalism, 309; 
literature, 312; shipping, 318; 
ship-building, 321, 331-332; 
products, 329; fisheries, 330; 
trade, 331; ports, 332; manu- 
factures, 333-336. See also 
colonies by name. 

New England Confederation, 
Dutch treaty, 42 ; war threats, 
42, 43; and Massachusetts, 
43 » 45; decline, 43; end, 44; 
on Quakers, 46, 162; on Con- 
necticut and New Haven, 60 ; 
and Rhode Island, 62. 

New Hampshire, Massachusetts 
claims, 45, 257; royal prov- 
ince, 261; population (1680), 
288; bibliography, 345. See 
also New England. 

New Haven, Delaware trade, 
4, 42, 57; agent to Parlia- 
ment, 50; and the regicides, 
51; proclaims Charles II., 
51; discontent, 52, 58; Con- 
necticut botmdary, 52; trade 
ventures, 57; migration con- 
sidered, 57; Gruiflord, 59-61; 
absorbed by Connecticut, 60; 
settlers in New Jersey, 61, 

New Jersey, New England 
settlers, 61, 107-109; grant, 
loi; Concessions, 104; early 
settlers, 105; NicoUs's settle- 
ments, 106, hi; Carteret 
governor, 107 ; first assembly, 
109 ; Carteret and the settlers, 
I go; quit rents, no, 114; re- 
bellion, hi; peace, iii; un- 
der the Dutch, 1 1 1 ; regrant, 
113; divided, 114, 117; social 
conditions, 288-313; towns, 
298, 299; trade, 322-324; 
bibliography, 348. See also 
East New 'jersey, Middle 
colonies. West New Jer- 

New Netherland, extent, 4; 
and the Swedes, 4; evades 
navigation acts, 12, 13; 
Cromwell's expedition, 13, 
43; New England boun- 
dary, 42; New England war 
threats, 42, 43; Connecti- 
cut encroaches, 48, 49, 76; 
and Coddington, 64; im- 
portance of situation, 7^; 
weakness, 75; Stuy-vesant s 
^®» 75» 7^1 complaints of 
English settlers, 76; English 
conspiracy against, 77, 78; 
territory granted to York, 
78; capture, 79-81; trade. 



3 J 7 ; bibliomphy , 347 . See 
also New York. 

New York, admiralty court, 
ps; granted to York. 78; 
boundaries, 80 -8a, 98; 
powers of proprietary, 8a; 
organization under Nioolls, 
83, 84; Duke's Laws, 84-86; 
protest of Long Island towns, 
86-89 ;recaptmed by Dutch, 
89, 90; restored to England, 
90; Andros governor, 90; 
checks to development, 91, 
100; York's policy, 9a, 93; 
Andros's admmistration, 93; 
representation, 93-96, 08; 
trade controversy with New 
Jersey. 94. 99, 119, ia7, 335- 
3a7 ; disafifection, 95 ; charter, 
96-98; royal province, 97; 
Dongan's rule. 98; annexed 
to New England, 372; 
Nicholson's aaministration, 
283; rumors (1689), 283; 
revolt, 283; Leisler's^^rebel- 
lion, 284-286 ; Sloughter, gov- 
ernor, 2^6 ^ reorganization, 
287 ; population (1689), 288; 
social conditions, 288-313; 
towns, 298; schools, 310; 
trade. 327; fisheries, 330: 
export, 3^0; bibliography, 
J 4 7 . See also Middle colonies, 
New Netherland. 

New York City, charter (1665), 
84; (1683), 98; appearance, 

Newark settled, 61, 108. 

Newport, settled, 62; and Cod- 
dington, 62-64. 

Nicholson, Francis, in Virginia, 
231; in New York, 372,283; 
leaves, 284. 

NicoUs, Richard, commissioner, 
69 » 70 » 79 1 governor of York's 
grant, 79; captures New 
Amsterdam, 80; Connecticut 
boimdary, 81; as governor, 
83; laws, 84; and Long Isl- 

• and towns, 85, 86; 00 Penn- 
sylvania region, 167. 

Noell, Martin, plan for ^^'^J***^^! 
council, 22, 23. 

North Carolina, Virginia settle- 
ment, X31; New En^and 
traders, 131 ; Drummond gov- 
ernor, 138; first assembly, 
139; complaints, 139; towns 
encouraged, 139; Stephens 

governor, 158; Quakers in, 
ic8, 164; agricultural, 158; 
illicit tiade, 158, 159; and 

the proprietaries, 158; Car- 
teret governor, 159; East- 
church and Bliller, 159; re- 
volt, 159; Sothell's rule, 160; 
causes of discontent, 160, 
161; Ludwell, governor, 161; 
bibliography, 353. See also 
South Carolma. 

Oath, prescribed by Baltimore, 
234; Massachusetts, 258. 

Orange, Fort, captur»l, 81; 
called Albany, 83. 

Parliament, acts in the colo- 
nies, 37, 258; and colonial 
government, 4, 10, 202, 233, 
235; annuls Maryland char- 
ter, 23^; supremacy, 273. 

Penn, William, interest in New 
Jersey, 115, 122, 125, 187; 
draughts West New Jersey 
Concessions, 122; training, 
165; royal debt, 166; interest 
in government, 167; knowl- 
edge of Pennsylvama region, 
167; motive, 168; grant, 168- 
177; and Baltimore, 170, 187, 
194, 247, 250; desires ports, 
172; acquires Delaware, 173; 
powers, 175-177; prospectus, 
177; Conditions ana Con- 
cessions, 178; and Indians, 
178, 181, 188; instruc- 
tions, 179 -181; on prin- 
ciples of government, 179, 



182, 183; on town site and 
plan, 180; on trade, 181, 320- 
322; frame of government, 

183, 191-193; in Penn- 
sylvania, 185-189, 194, 200; 
return to England, 194, 247; 
influence at cottrt, 194; no 
quo warranto against, 10^; 
difficulties, 195; loses nis 
colony, 106, 200; and the 
colony's oisputes, 197-109; 
restored, 200; bibliograpny, 

349. 353- 
Pennsylvania, admiralty cottrt, 

35 ; agent and review of laws, 
37, 176; New York boun- 
daiy, 98, 171; grant, 168; 
Maryland boimdary, 170- 
173, 180, 187, 247, 250; 
named, 175; land grants, 178; 
instructions to Markhami, 
179; existing settlements 
(1680), 179, 180; trading 
company, 181; government, 
183, 191-193, 198, 199; first 
assembly, 186; lower coim- 
ties annexed, 186; Great 
Law, 186; development, 189- 
191, 200; race elements, 180, 
289, 319; counties, 190; trade 
and manufactures, loi, 201, 
320-322; bicameral legislat- 
ure, 193; loyalty to Penn ,194; 
exempted from Andros's rule, 
19 c; Penn loses, 196, 200; 

Sofitical disputes, 196-199; 
Delaware desires separation, 
199; Quaker schism, 200; 
restored to Penn, 200; pop- 
ulation (1689), 288; social 
conditions, 288-313; towns, 
299; schools, 310; products, 
^20; customs duties, 325; 
bibliography, 349. See also 
Middle colonies, Penn. 

Perth Amboy, trade, 127, 325. 

Philadelphia, site ana plan, 
180; Penn at, 187, 188; in 
1685, 190; trade, 191, 322, 

323; growth, 200; incorpo- 
rated, 200; appearance, 299. 

Philip, Chief, 253. 

Pirates in Cairohnas, 156, 160. 

Plymouth, admiral t)r court, 35; 
and royal commission, jo; 
yields to Andros, 270; ship- 
ping. 332; bibliography, 344. 
See also New En&rland. 

Population, colonial f 1650), 3; 
1689), 288; Rhode Island 
1660), 61; South Carolina 
i6;r2, 1685), 148; Pennsyl- 
vania (1685), 189. 

Port Royal, Scotch settlement, 
149, 151, 154. 

Portsmouth, union, 62. 

Povey, Thomas, receiver-gen- 
eral, 16; plan for colonial 
coimcil, 22, 23. 

Presbyterianism, in New Eng- 
land, 308 ; in middle colonies, 
309; in south, 309. 

Proprietary colonies, attitude 
of Charles II., 38; objections 
to (1682), 264. See also 
colonies by name. 

Puritans, driven from Virginia, 
202; in Maryland, 233-241, 
280, 281. See also other 
colonies by name. 

Quakers, persecuted, 46, 162- 
164; refuge in America, 114, 
162, 163; interest in New 
Jersey, 114-116, 125; scat- 
tered communities, 164; de- 
sire a settlement, 164, 165; 
schism in Pennsylvania, 200 ; 
in New England, 308; in 
middle colonies, 309; in 
south, 309; trade in New 
York, 328; bibliography, 

Quit-rents, in Jerseys, no, 114, 

122; in south, 24^. 
Quo warranto t against Massa- 
chusetts, 39, 263; avoided, 



Racb elements in Pennsylvania 
i8o; in 1689, 289. 

Rimaolph, Edward, collector 
and searcher, 34, a 60; on 
Massachusetts, 46, 256; com- 
plaints, 257, 262; budget, 
a6i; urges quo warranto, 
262; serves it, 263; attacks 
Connecticut and Khode Isl- 
and, 265, 267; arrested, 277. 

Redemptioners. See Servants. 

Religion, propagation, 24; per- 
secution 46, 162; toleration, 
48, 85; liberty, 104, 106, 121, 
186; conditions in Virginia, 
202, 207, 230; estabhshed 
church, 207; Maryland con- 
ditions, 233, 23s, 236, 239, 
246. See also sects byname. 

Representation, equal town, in 
Connecticut, J5; "nine men." 
75; in New York, 93-96, 98, 
287; in New Jersey, 109; in 
West New Jersey , 121, 122 ;in 
Carolina, 139, 143, 144. 147'. 
in Pennsylvania, 184, 193; 
control by Virginia bur- 
gesses, 205-207; close cor- 
poration in Virginia, 208, 
210; reformation m Virginia, 
218; Puritan, in Maryland, 
238; controversy with Balti- 
more, 241, 242; quarrels, 
245, 247; restriction, 246; 
none in dominion of New Eng- 
land, 266; protest of towns, 
268; lost in Massachusetts, 
276; lost in Maryland, 282. 

Revenue, and colonial policy, 
14-17, 32-35; Massachusetts 
undermines royal, 259. See 
also Customs. 

Revolution of 1688, in England, 
273; causes, 274, 276; rising 
in Boston, 277; in Connecti- 
cut 'and Rhode Island, 278; 
in Maryland, 279-281; in 
New York, 283; Leisler's 
government, 284-286. 

Rhode Island, admiralty court, 
35 ; population (z66o), 61; 
(1689), 288; struggle for 
existence, 61; loose union, 
62; factions, 62; and the 
New England Confederation, 
62, 63; Coddington's rule, 
^3*65; patent renewed, 64; 
continued separation, 65; re- 
union, 65; proclaims Charles 
II., 65; Connecticut boun- 
dary, 66; charter, 66-68; 
subordination of executive, 
68; and royal commission, 
70; and Qoiakers, 163; at- 
tacked by Randolph, 26 c; 
writs against, 268; Andres s 
aggression, 270 ; added to New 
England, 271; resumes char- 
ter, 278; trade, 33^; bib- 
liography, 346. See cusoHew 

Royal commission (1664), 69— 
7i» 79. 

Saco, part of Massachusetts, 45. 
Scots in South Carolina, 149, 


Self-government, policy of co- 
lonial, 9; in New England. 
42; instinct, 97; disfavored 
by James II., 267. See also 
Colonies, Constitutions, Re- 
presentation, and colonies by 

Servants, white, in 1689, 291; 
indented, 291; conditions, 
292; future, 29^; authorities, 
343. See also Slavery. 

Shaftesbury. See Ashley. 

Shipping, South Carolina, 3x6; 
Maryland, 718; building, 321, 
331-333; New York, 328. 

Shrewsbury settled, 106. 

Slave-trade, New England, 290. 

Slavery, Mennonite protest, 
189; in Maryland, 343; 
colonial in 1689, 390; num- 
bers, 290; bibliography, 343. 



Sloughter, governor of New 
York, 286, 287. 

Social conditions, in Maryland, 
243; general (165 2-1 689), 
288-313; population, 288; 
races, 289; slaves, 290; white 
servants, 291; food, 293; 
southern condition, 293-296; 
houses, 297; towns, 297-301; 
transportation, 301; furni- 
ture, 302; ceremonial, 302; 
chtux:hes, J04-3 1 1 ; education, 
3 1 0-3 1 2 ; literatxu-e, 312; pro- 
fessions, 313; bibliography, 

Sothell, Seth, Carolinas, 156, 

157. i^o- 
Sources on period 1652-1689, 

South, topography of coast, 

129; races, 289; slaves, 290; 
servants, 291; disease, 293; 
food, 293-296; planters, ^00; 
towns, 301; transportation, 
301; churches, 304-308; 
Episcopal jurisdiction, 307; 
sects, 309; schools, 310; 
products, 314-319; trade, 
314-319, 332; manufactures, 
317. See also colonies by 
South Carolina, Barbadian 
settlers, 134-138, 146; settle- 
ment of Charles Town, 142; 
earlv politics, 143; first as- 
sembly, 147; towns encour- 
aged, 147; unprofitable, 147; 
proprietary debts, 147, 148; 
Yeamans and West, 147, 148; 
growth , 148-150; French 
Protestants, 148; Scots, 149, 
154; Indian war, 150; and 
Spanish, 151; friction with 
proprietaries, 152-155; trade 
monopoly, 152; illicit trade, 
1 5 J ; Colleton governor, 155; 
political dead-lock, 156; pi- 
rates, 156; Sothell's rule, 156, 
157; Ludwell, governor. 

1 57 1 population (1689), 288; 
products, 315; trade, 316; 
bibUography, 354. See also 
Carolina, South. 

Southampton, attempted \mion 
with Connecticut, 49, 88, 89, 

Southold, Connecticut claims, 
55. 59; discontent with New 
Haven, 58; attempted union 
with Connecticut, 88, 89, 91. 

Spain, claim to Carolina, 130; 
attacks on Carolina, 151. 

Stamford, Connecticut claims, 
55, 59; discontent, 58. 

Stewart's Town, South Caro- 
lina, destroyed, 151. 

Stone, governor of Maryland, 
234; proclamation, 235; ri- 
valry with Fuller, 237; war 
with Puritans, 237; defeat, 

Stuyvesant, Peter, and the 
Indian massacres, 42; as 
director-general, 75, 76; and 
the English resiaents, 76; 
Connecticut's encroachments, 
76; surrender, 81; and trade, 


Suffrage, qualification in Con- 
necticut, 49, 55; in New 
York, 85, 287; in Virginia, 
208, 217. See also Repre- 

Sweden, settlements, 179, 319; 
Dutch conquest, 4. 

Taxation, protest of Long Isl- 
and towns, 86-89; burden in 
Virginia, 209, 210, 216; pro- 
test in Massachusetts, 276. 
See also Customs, Revenue. 

Tobacco, export, 18; instability 
and overproduction, 2 1 1-2 1 3 , 
227; limiting planting, 207, 
228; plant - cutters, 228; 
in Maryland, 243; impor- 
tance, 312. 

Towns, equal representation 



in Connecticut, 55; tinder 
Duke's Laws» 85; encourage- 
ment, 139, 147, ao7, 209; 
bibliography, 345. See also 
colonies by name. 
Trade, New Haven, Delaware, 
4. 42. 57; early coun- 
cils, 4; parliamentary con- 
trol, 5, 239; mercantile 
system, 6-10; Dutch control 
of carrying, 10; effect of 
restoration, 13; interest of 
Charles II., 14-17; English 
monopoly, 18; restrictions on 
intercolonial, 20, 30, 158, 160; 
council (1660), 23; activities 
of Lords of Trade, 27; ad- 
miralty courts, 31, 35; colo- 
nial revenue officers, 32-35; 
New Haven interests, 57; 
Dutch-Enelish rivalry, 77- 
r9; New York, 99, 327; New 
fersey, 123, 324; Indian, in 

._ _J3, 324, ,_ 

mtn Carolina, 152; North 
Carolina, 158, 159; Penn's 
plans, 181; Pennsylvania, 
191, ^201; Virginia, 203; 
tobacco, 211-213, 316; fees 
of vessels, 227; mfluence on 
colonial government, 2 40; dis- 
turbed by King Philip's War, 
255; coasting, 301; West 
Indian, 316; rJew England, 
318, 330-335; ^^irs, 319, 320; 
exports, 322. See also Cus- 
toms, Navigation acts. 
Treaties, Hartford (1650), 42; 
Westminster (1674), 90; Iro- 
quois (1684), 99; Penn's 
(1683), 189. 

Union, royal plans, 37-39» 97. 
264, 265; dominion of New 
England, 265; completed, 
270, 271; larger plan, 271. 
See also New England Con- 

Upland, Dutch settlement, 179, 
180; named Chester, 186. 

Vans, Sir Harrt, and Will- 
iams, 64. 

Virginia, parliamentary control, 
4, 202, 233 ; revenue auditor, 
^2; admiralty court, 35; 
loyalty, 202; and the first 
navigation act, 203; imd 
Cromwell, 203-206; burgesses 
control, 205 - 207, elected 
governors, 205-207; dissatis- 
&ction, 205 ; Restoration, 
207 ; encouragement of towns, 
207, 209; control by Berke- 
ley^ 208; freehold fran- 
chise, 208; governmental 
abuses, 208--211; forts, 209; 
taxation, 209, 210; local 
abuses, 210; instability of 
tobacco, 21 1-2 13; other pro- 
ducts encotu^ged, 213; Dutch 
attack, 213; granted to 
Arlington and Ciilpeper, 214; 
efforts for a charter, 214, 
226; Indian war (1675), 21 q; 
plots, 215; Bacon's rebel- 
lion, 217-222; Chicheley's 
administration, 222, 226, 
228; English forces, 223; 
investigation, 223; report 
against Berkeley, 224; effect 
of rebellion, 225; Teffrejrs 
governor, 225; Culpeper's 
rule, 226, 220; tobacco riots, 
228; Howara governor, 229; 
rumors (1688), 230; William 
and Mary proclaimed, 230; 
back settlements, 231; Nich- 
olson, governor, 231; food 
exports to New England, 
255; poptilation (1689), 288; 
social conditions, 288- 
331; schools, 310; prod- 
ucts, 314; tobacco exports, 
316; manufactures, 317; bib- 
liography, 351. See also 

War, England-Holland (1652), 
12; (1673), 89. 213; King 



Philip's, 253-256; France- 

England (1689), 283. 
Warwick patent, Connecticut 
^purchases, 50. 
Wentworth, Hugh, governor 

of South Carolina, 145. 
Werden, Sir John, York's agent, 

West, Joseph, governor of 

South Carolina, 144, 147, 148, 

152. 154. 
West Indies, trade, 322-333; 

bibHography, 354. . 

West New Jersey, conditions, 
113; Quakers buy, 114-116; 
York's attitude, 116, 122; 
auintipartite deed, 117; boun- 
aary, 117; Andros's claim, 
118, 119; Fenwick's settle- 
ment, 118; other settlements, 
120; concessions, 121; quit- 
rents, 122; Jennings, govern- 
or, 122; elective governor, 
123; promotion by Coxe, 
123; quo warranto, 124; under 
Andros, 124; sold, 124; 
command of militia, 125; 
royal province, 125; weak- 
ness, 127; poptdation (1689), 
288 ; trade, 322; bibliography, 
348. See also Middle colo- 
nies, New Jersey. 

Wheat, food, 319; export, 327. 

William III., proclaimed in 
America, 230, 278, 280, 285; 
Massachusetts charter, 279; 
and Maryland, 282 ; and New 
York, 286; annuls New York 
statute, 287. 

WiUiams, Roger, driven from 
Massachusetts, 46; gets re- 
newal of patent, 6^, presi- 
dent, 65 ; bibliography. 347. 

Winthrop, John (2d), colomal 
agent, 36; and the regicides, 
5 1 ; sent to England, 53 ; char- 
acter, 53 ; obtains charter, 53 ; 
auestion of bribery, ^4; and 
le charter boundaries, 59; 
and Rhode Island, 66. 

Wool, manufactures, 317, 333. 

Ybamans, Sir John, settle- 
ijaent, 136, 138; governor of 
South Carolina, 142, 147, 148. 

York, duke of, conspiracy 
against New Netherland, 78; 
grant, 78; grants New Jer- 
sey, 80, loi ; extent of grant, 
80; powers as proprietary, 
82; policy, 84, 92-96; and 
the Jerseys, 11 7-1 20, 122, 
126; and Penn's grant, 170, 
173. See also James II. 

York, Maine, Massachusetts re- 
annexes, 72. 


VOU ▼. — 14 



p.":t o: